Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Ozone Depletion

Mr. Fabricant:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet his EC colleagues to discuss measures to reduce the release of chlorofluoro-carbons and other gases causing depletion of the ozone layer; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Measures to protect the ozone layer were discussed at the Council of European Environment Ministers earlier this week. I hope that we shall agree a new European regulation on ozone-depleting substances in the autumn.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and take this opportunity to welcome him to the Dispatch Box. He has made a seamless transition from agriculture to the environment. I should like to press him on the issue. Is there not more that we can do, especially in terms of recycling substances which are destroying the ozone layer?

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. We are doing a great deal to encourage recycling. We have made the venting of waste chlorofluorocarbons illegal; we have allocated supplementary credit approvals to local authorities for investment in recycling facilities for 1993–94; and we have given special priority to schemes to help in that direction. As these substances exist, it is important to ensure that they are used usefully, but that, in future, they are not manufactured.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I associate the Opposition Benches with the welcome to the new Secretary of State for the Environment? He may be assured of the greatest collaboration from this side in every initiative that supports good environmental practice and sustainability. In the light of allegations about a firm in Leeds, will he make it clear that anybody who discharges into the atmosphere materials such as chlorofluoromethane is liable to be prosecuted under sections 33 and 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990? Can it be made clear that prosecutions will take place as the law permits, and is the Secretary of State quite clear that, under his administration in the Department, there will be no mild response if people flagrantly break the law, but that he will make sure that that Act is enforced in the way that was intended?

Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the part of his question that was helpful. I do not want to refer to the case about which he spoke in the second part of his question, because that would obviously be improper. In general, I take a strong view about the need for this generation not to destroy the next generation. Therefore, the kind of activities to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be dealt with using the full rigour of the law.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend take time to look at a report published in a national newspaper last week which casts grave doubts on the idea that locally produced, that is to say, earthbound-produced, chemicals have any effect at all on the ozone layer? The article said that the coming and going of holes in the ozone layer was a natural phenomenon. Before we begin to destroy the important refrigeration industry by banning one of its essential chemicals, we should take grave note of that report.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend and I have often sparred on matters not dissimilar to this one. I advise my hon. Friend not to base her arguments on a selective number of reports. It must be accepted that the dangers to the ozone layer are now pretty well attested. Even if the attestation were less, the dangers of getting this wrong for the next generation are so great that it is proper for us to take very tough measures. The fact that we are taking such measures in concert with our European partners and with other partners throughout the world enables us to ensure that our important refrigeration industry is able to compete on level terms with that industry in other countries. After all, there are alternatives for the refrigeration industry in most cases and they are now being put into place.

Ms Short: May I join in welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his new job? May I also welcome what he said about taking precautions for the next generation and say how genuinely sad I am that he has made a very bad start in that job? The previous Secretary of State promised that the United Kingdom would take the lead on tighter European Community regulation on ozone depletion. Is it not the case that we made no progress at the recent meeting because of the big row about carbon energy tax? Eleven countries in Europe want to make progress; the United Kingdom says no. Therefore, Europe cannot sign the climate convention and Britain is holding back progress on such issues for the whole of Europe. That is the start that the right hon. Gentleman has made in his job.

Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks. In our meeting over lunch on the subject of which she speaks, we ended up moving from 11 to I against the United Kingdom, to 10 to 2 in favour, because every other member, bar two, felt that the Danish proposition did nothing to help prevent climate change. We felt that we ought to work at those things together. She will find—especially if she gives me her help—no one more concerned to protect the next generation than I am. I hope that she will not start our negotiations and discussions by making party-political points when there is no basis for them.

Mr. Salmond: May I join in welcoming the Minister to his new post? He will understand, however, in the light of his unfortunate radio interview, that many of us will be looking for some sign that he is now fully in command of the subject as regards the ozone layer. Can he tell us why


dry cleaning businesses in this country are not being offered any special assistance to convert machinery away from ozone-damaging processes, in accordance with the Montreal protocol, when my understanding is that assistance is available elsewhere in the European Community? When will the Minister consider assistance for dry cleaning businesses in this country?

Mr. Gummer: I would not have expected an unremitting welcome from the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have fought long battles because I am in favour of sea fish conservation and he opposes it, for many narrow-minded, short-term reasons, so he has to find some comment of that sort.
Britain's dry cleaning industry is as close to my heart as it is to the hon. Gentleman's and I recognise its difficulties. I am happy to consider whether other people benefit from things from which our dry cleaning industry does not, but it is not unreasonable to ask industry to meet requirements that are necessary for the protection of the future of this nation and the rest of the world. Businesses ought to meet those requirements and, in general, are doing so. They have been given time to do so and I hope that no one will take the hon. Gentleman's comments as an excuse for not proceeding as fast as possible.

Council Tax

Dr. Howells:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of local authorities to discuss the implementation of the council tax.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) discussed the council tax with representatives of local authorities in England in September 1992. My Department has continued to work closely with local authorities on all aspects of council tax implementation.

Dr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that many thousands of householders throughout England and Wales believe that their homes have been placed in the wrong council tax band, and that they are still waiting for their cases to be heard? Can he tell the House what measures he is taking to speed up the hearing of those cases so that those householders may find some peace of mind? That will help revenue collection in hard-pressed local authorities.

Mr. Baldry: Less than 3 per cent. of bandings have been appealed against and it is intended that the vast majority will be dealt with as speedily and effectively as possible. We anticipate that the vast majority of appeals will be dealt with during next year and many will be dealt with much sooner.

Mr. Milligan: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that there has been a great welcome for the introduction of the council tax? In my constituency, in the first week, half the telephone calls to the local council came from people who wanted to know why their bill was so low, because they did not appreciate the generosity of transitional relief. Does he also agree that many people have been misled by Labour party-political broadcasts, which claim that council tax under Labour councils is £16 lower on average than under Conservative councils? Can he confirm that that is

extremely misleading? If one compares like with like for homes in the same band, the tax is much less under Conservative councils.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes some extremely good points. Six out of 10 people will pay less under the council tax than they did under the community charge. Band for band, Conservative councils cost less and deliver better services. Of course, it is absurd to compare average bill with average bill when the average band in a Labour area is band A and in a Conservative area it is band D. If we simply take the average band in a Conservative area, the tax is £107 less than the Labour equivalent.

Mr. Straw: Why does not the Minister wake up to the fact that the electors believed us on the council tax, not the Tories, which is why the Tory party was annihilated at the county elections and we had spectacular successes?
While the Minister is singing the praises of the poll tax, is he aware that his Secretary of State, when he was Minister for the poll tax, screeched around the country damning any idea of a property tax based on capital values, such as the council tax? The right hon. Gentleman even claimed that the poll tax was the
clearest and fairest local tax ever
and that it was, "a morally superior alternative" to a property-based tax.
Has the Secretary of State yet told the Minister whether he still holds such crackpot views, or does the Minister think that his right hon. Friend's desire to stay in office has got the better of his moral superiority?

Mr. Baldry: Electors should be very wary of listening to any estimates from the Labour party on anything to do with local tax. For example, Labour-controlled Birmingham city council said that the introduction of the council tax and this year's settlement would result in 3,000 redundancies. It then revised that figure to 1,000. In the event, it increased its full-time payroll by 2·3 per cent. So much for Labour estimates.

Mr. James Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main question was about implementation? I must say that, from my postbag, there appears to have been a very smooth transition from the community charge to the council tax. Does my hon. Friend further agree that if people have any complaints about banding, they should write to their Member of Parliament as soon as possible? The implementation has been so smooth that I believe that the council tax is one of the best policies that the Government have introduced recently.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes some excellent points. As I said, only 3 per cent. of bandings have been appealed against. That is a sign that the vast majority of people accept that their bandings are fair and reasonable. As I also said, six out of 10 people pay less under the council tax than they did under the community charge. We must also take into account council tax benefit, transitional relief and discounts—all of which further reduce the bills that people have to pay.

Water Disconnections

Mr. Jamieson:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest information on the numbers of domestic households being disconnected from their water supply in order to recover debt.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Tim Yeo): In total, 18,636 domestic customers had their water supply disconnected in 1992–93 for non-payment of their bills.

Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency of Devonport and in the region covered by South West Water, water charges are rising more rapidly than anywhere else in the country? That will inevitably lead to more and more people falling behind with their bills and they will then face disconnection. Does he accept that access to clean water is a basic fundamental human right which is essential to health and life? Will he introduce measures to outlaw disconnections and ensure that water companies use more acceptable means to collect their charges?

Mr. Yeo: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are doing everything that they can to ensure that price rises are kept to a minimum. The fact is that rates of disconnection in the south-west are barely half the national average. Whatever else may be the cause, it is clear that rates of disconnection are nothing to do with the hon. Gentleman's concern about prices.
Disconnection must remain as a necessary last resort—a sanction on those who will not pay. It is not designed to dispossess those who cannot pay. In fact, over half of all households that are disconnected have their supply reconnected within 48 hours. No one who is seeking help from the Department of Social Security will be disconnected until his case has been investigated.
Prohibiting disconnections would burden those customers who pay their bills, in order to help those who refuse to pay theirs. That is a policy which characterises the Labour party and it explains why it remains out of office.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that water disconnections last year were substantially down on the year before—by between 10 and 12 per cent.—and that a great many hoops have to be gone through before anybody can possibly be disconnected?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right; disconnections are down and so are court actions. She is also right that there are considerable obstacles to water companies disconnecting customers. They have to go through an elaborate legal process, and disconnection takes place only when all other routes have been exhausted. The overwhelming evidence is that it catches only those who have refused to pay and not those who are unable to pay.

Mr. Chris Smith: May I first welcome the Minister to his new post? Does he agree that it is an outrage that every week 360 families in Britain have their water supply disconnected, while we heard only this morning that the chairman of North West Water received a salary increase last year of 43 per cent., bringing his salary to £238,000 a year? When will we end the barbaric practice of cutting off people's water supply, which is essential to their life and health, simply to recover a debt? Why do we not follow the example of other countries, including Scotland, I am pleased to say, and outlaw that practice?

Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. In the case of North West Water, I have seen a letter from his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to the Prime Minister today about the pay of

the chairman of North West Water. Disconnections in the north-west are even lower than they are in the south-west; they are running at about a quarter of the level that prevails across the country. It is absolutely typical of the Labour party to make no mention of the huge increase in the investment programme of the water industry since privatisation—a £30 billion programme through the decade. The water companies invest £8,000 every minute of every day. The Labour party can think only about the politics of envy and their concern about salaries.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend accept that there ought to be a happy medium between the idiocy of free water advocated by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devenport (Mr. Jamieson) and the level of water charges in the south-west? Does he accept that while it is not the Government's fault that the European bathing water directive has brought about extremely high water charges in the south-west, ultimately only the Government can deliver a solution? While I do not suggest that we should have free water, as the hon. Member for Devonport did, will my hon. Friend at least take on board that there is a problem in the west country which has to be addressed?

Mr. Yeo: Yes. I am grateful at last to have an intervention from my hon. Friend, who approaches the subject in a more rational light. Of course we cannot have free water; however, we entirely share his concern about the rate of price increases in the south-west and we are examining every possible option to find ways to restrain those price increases. I can assure him that, in complying with the European Community directives, we will make sure that we move no further or faster than we are absolutely required to do by law, and if there are any other ways of bringing those price increases under control and slowing them down, we are ready to discuss them with my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends from that region.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Nigel Jones:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received in support of the Local Government Commission's report, "The Future Local Government of Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset".

The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): At this stage of the review, representations are to be made to the Local Government Commission and not to me.

Mr. Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware that his proposals have gone down like a lead balloon and that the commissioners have been lucky to escape alive from public consultation meetings? Will he change the guidelines to commission and explain why he is prepared to spend large amounts of money on the review at the same time as cutting spending on front-line services such as education and police?

Mr. Curry: I have received representations from all over the House. Some of the recommendations have been well received—for instance in Avon, Humberside and Cleveland—and some have not been well received. However, we are only at stage 1 in a long process of consultation. The commission has to bring forward revised recommendations, the Government have to judge them and the House of Commons has to accept them.


People have plenty of opportunity to make clear their views. To write off the thing now would be silly and it certainly would not be the views of the Liberal councillors whom I met at the Association of District Councils meeting in Bournemouth.

Mr. Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware of early-day motion 2153, signed by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), which suggests that we should stop the local government review and retain both county and district councils? Does my hon. Friend accept that everybody in Gloucestershire wants unitary authorities, for their increased efficiency and the savings that they will make, and that that opinion is shared by the county council and the district council—everybody in the county except the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Curry: We should have to reflect hard before we decided that we were simply going to call the review off, as the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion says. It would be a wrong decision and it would be difficult to explain why in certain authorities, such as Cleveland and Avon, people were to have the opportunity of successor unitary authorities, but in other parts of the country that may have similar characteristics, that was not to be available. The sensible thing is to consider the review and how we should take it forward to ensure that it reflects local opinions and the need to deliver local services effectively, rather than to spend too much time on the competing territorial ambitions of councillors.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that the Labour party conference and the national executive have long and consistently supported the principle of unitary authorities and of the commission to examine those proposals? I therefore welcome what he has said. Does the Minister understand, however, that there is widespread anxiety about the commission's interpretation of its guidance, especially on the issues of cost and of community identity?
Does the Minister share the Labour party's view that the commission's current policy for local elections to be held once every four years only, in place of annual elections in most places, would be a disaster for local democracy and would greatly reduce the accountability of councils to their local electorates?

Mr. Curry: The Government have no religious views on how elections are to take place in successor organisations and we shall be willing to listen to representations on how that would make councils more accountable and effective.
The hon. Gentleman's comments on unitary councils reflect the opinion of many people. It is important that people have the opportunity to express what sort of councils they want. In all the debate about the review, we should not lose sight of the fact that the essential purpose is the delivery of services to people. If there is an overwhelming feeling that the review needs to be looked at to see how it can be taken forward, the Government are open to that. Sir John Banham has made similar comments. We do not want to lose sight of the fact that the review is about the delivery of services to people, and how best that can be done in an efficient way that reflects the opinions, feelings and identities of people.

Mr. Butcher: May I ask my hon. Friend to grasp Sir John Banham warmly by the throat and to ask him not to tinker with history and our heritage? He will be cheered to the echo if he gets rid of the aberration of Avon and

restores the traditional county boundaries for all purposes other than local government, but if he carries on inventing history, or reinventing history, by, for example, creating an East Riding of Yorkshire that bears no resemblance to the original, those proposals will be as hated as the current counties of Humberside and Avon are.

Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the essential purposes of the review is to have regard to where people feel they belong and their identities. I know that there is a great anxiety over certain reunification movements. My hon. Friend will know that West Craven, in Yorkshire, has been put into Lancashire for reasons that—speaking as a Yorkshire Member—are always incomprehensible, but there is a move to return it to Yorkshire. It is up to people to express what they want from the review. It is at an early stage. The final recommendations must reflect local opinion and prove that they have done so. The Government have the discretion to accept the recommendations, to send them back to the commission or to make modifications within its spirit. There is a lot of work to be done. I listen carefully to what my hon. Friend and other hon. Members say about the feelings expressed by their constituents.

Dioxin

Mr. Skinner:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now meet a deputation of representatives from North Derbyshire to discuss dioxin and other related environmental matters.

Mr. Yeo: A meeting is proposed for 5 July between Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and elected members and officers of Derbyshire county council and district councils specifically to discuss dioxins in Derbyshire.

Mr. Skinner: I call on the Secretary of State for the Environment to meet the representatives and not just Her Majesty's inspectorate. Two years ago, dioxin was discovered in the milk in Bolsover. It was then found in the beef cattle and then in the soil. It has now been found in the next door constituency of Derbyshire, North-East. I call on the Minister to understand that we have a right to have meetings and a public inquiry. If dioxin was discovered in the pond that belongs to the Secretary of State for the Environment, there would be health inspectors and public inquiries until the cows come home.

Mr. Yeo: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is in characteristically courteous form. The report on the subject and all the relevant information will be published as soon as possible after a decision has been taken on whether to prosecute Coalite. Meanwhile, the Coalite incinerator has been closed for modification. Before it can restart operations, it will have to meet stringent standards. The House will also want to know that the Government's commitment to controlling dioxin emissions was demonstrated yesterday by our agreement in the Council of Ministers to the directive on the incineration of hazardous waste, which sets very demanding limits. Bearing all that in mind, no purpose would be served by holding a meeting at this stage.

Council Tax

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to alter the help available to people living alone under the council tax.

Mr. Baldry: People living alone are entitled to a 25 per cent. council tax discount. Many will also receive relief to ease the transition from the community charge. Households on low incomes qualify for benefit to offset part or all of their council tax liability.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful reply. Can he confirm that when the Local Government Finance Act 1992 was passing through the House, Opposition Members voted against the principle of a discount for those who live alone? Will he further note that many single-person households comprise pensioners? Given the Opposition's alleged concern for pensioners, does he agree that voting against a discount means voting against pensioners' interests?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party made it clear in Committee that it objected in principle to the discount system. Labour Members made it clear that an incoming Labour Government would do away with the discount. Anyone who has a discount for being a single person, whether a pensioner or not, knows that if the Labour party had its way, discounts would be scrapped.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that despite what he has said, many elderly pensioners living alone are angry about the situation in which they find themselves? They were told that they would benefit most when rates were abolished, but they paid a lot more under the poll tax. Many of them are now paying even more under the council tax than they were under the poll tax. Will the Government consider introducing a banding lower than band A which would help many single people living alone and others who live in areas where there are many band A properties? In 57 local authorities, more than 50 per cent. of the properties are in band A.

Mr. Baldry: Pensioners must think it a bit rich for a party that did not want to have discounts at all to now act as the pensioners' friend.

Construction Industry

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken by his Department since April 1992 specifically to assist the United Kingdom construction industry.

Mr. Gummer: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply on 27 January, Official Report, columns 762–63. Since then, the Government have introduced measures in the Budget to help the industry and my Department has undertaken a range of supporting activities including a review of sponsorship, three successful overseas trade missions, new consultative arrangements, an increased commitment to collaborative research and guidance on the involvement of private finance.

Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 500,000 people have lost their jobs in the construction industry during the recession, that housing starts are 46 per cent. down since 1988 and that

commercial output is down by 35 per cent. since 1990? Does my right hon. Friend agree with the House-Builders Federation, with the Building Employers Confederation, with the Federation of Master Builders and with the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance which urge the Government further to reduce interest rates modestly, to abolish stamp duty, to increase expenditure on the repair and refurbishment of public building and housing stock and to ensure that those measures are introduced by our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn Budget?

Mr. Gummer: I will ensure that my hon. Friend's recommendations for the Budget are passed on to our right hon. and learned Friend. I agree that the construction industry has gone through a difficult time during the recession. It would be wrong of us to underestimate the degree to which that has harmed businesses. There is no doubt, however, that things are a little better. Total construction orders for the first quarter of 1993 are 22 per cent. higher than in the previous three months. Public works new orders are up 43 per cent. on this time last year. Public housing and housing association orders are up by 26 per cent. There is no doubt that the situation is improving after a very difficult time. What is important is that our right hon. and learned Friend should not take measures that would make even more difficult our exit from the recession. To burden us with greater debt would do that. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not seek to press our right hon. and learned Friend to move in that direction.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that only a few weeks ago the Employment Select Committee conducted an inquiry and that the chairman of Blue Circle Cement appeared before it? We were told about the crisis and the job losses in the cement industry, due to the fact that electricity costs had increased by 40 per cent., with the result that the company is closing down many of its establishments and is now importing cheap cement from countries such as Greece. What does the Minister intend to do about high energy costs that are affecting the construction industry?

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I think that he must accept the fact that the cost of energy is something which all industries have to bear. Energy costs are particularly difficult in the cement industry because of the very high degree to which its costs are affected by electricity prices. However, these are not costs which can be passed on to others. It is a natural part of the cost of cement production. What is really difficult for the cement industry is the fall in orders because of the recession. What is therefore most important for the industry is that the Government continue with their economic policy and get us out of the recession much more quickly than any of our competitors.

Mr. Budgen: Ought not the construction industry and my right hon. Friend salute with gratitude Mr. George Soros and all those who saved the British economy on 16 September and gave us a new economic policy, lower interest rates and the construction industry the chance once again to play its important role?

Mr. Gummer: I am not sure which people we should salute, but we should have saluted the exchange rate


mechanism which enabled us to bring down our interest rates in the way that we did. We began to come out of the recession before we moved out of the ERM. My hon. Friend's thanks should range more widely.

Mr. Battle: The Secretary of State claims that, in his words, things are a little better. Is he not aware of yesterday's reports from the United Kingdom's largest housebuilders which show that the pace of recovery in the housing market has slowed down in the last four weeks, which is precisely the length of time that the Secretary of State has been in his new post? Is not the reality, as the Building Employers Confederation spelt out today, that the construction industry is one of the hardest hit industries in this Government-induced recession? Output was down by 14 per cent. between 1990 and 1992 and it is still on a downward trend. The number of new housing starts has fallen by 46 per cent. since 1988. Repairs, maintenance and improvement work is 18 per cent. lower than it was in 1989. Why does the Secretary of State for the Environment not take some responsibility for it? Why does he not use the recently published English house condition survey as a charter for renovation and repair and tackle the problem of the 1·5 million homes that are now revealed to be unfit? Why does he not re-employ the 500,000 building workers who are on the dole and ensure that sufficient homes are provided for all those who need them?

Mr. Gummer: If I may take the House back to the hon. Gentleman's first sentence, his early seminary training will remind him that that piece of logic does not stand up. One cannot take four weeks and think that that will lead to any understanding of what is actually happening. In the three months to April, housing starts and completions rose by 20 and 14 per cent. respectively. That is a sensible measure and one which the hon. Gentleman would normally take.I am sure that if he were judging the circumstances of a local or national Government run by Labour, he would take that kind of measure.
If we talk sensible measurements, the fact is that we are slowly but surely emerging from the recession. We shall get better. However, I am unlikely to have had the particular effect that the hon. Gentleman suggests I have over the past four weeks. He offers me the kind of power that would lead me to take credit for the good weather and that would obviously also be wrong.

Local Government, Cleveland

Mr. Mandelson:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the Local Government Commission's proposals for Cleveland.

Mr. Curry: I am required to take a view on the final proposals which will follow further consultation of local opinion by the commission.

Mr. Mandelson: Does the Minister agree that the Local Government Commission, far from being the political fix that some people have described it, carried out its work in Cleveland in a fair, rigorous and conscientious way? However, is the Minister aware of the disgraceful scaremongering and climate of intimidation which has been created by some people who are opposed to the commission's proposals? Will he take it from me that the majority of people in Cleveland want four unitary, local-based councils and that nothing else will do?

Mr. Curry: We have had some extremely disturbing reports about intimidation by certain people, including the Labour-controlled Cleveland council which is fighting desperately for its survival. We have heard elsewhere of meetings being packed by local authority employees. Of course they have their voice and a right to express their opinions. However, so has everyone else and it is opinion as a whole which counts. If opinion as a whole wants the change in Cleveland as in Avon and in Humberside—and we all know that those councils perhaps never quite attached themselves to the affections of people in the way that some historical councils did—and if people continue to make their representations, they will get those changes.

Mr. Bates: Is my hon. Friend aware that Cleveland county council's campaign of lies and disinformation, which has been deliberately designed to spread fear and anxiety among the council employees and among the public they are there to serve, has been condemned this afternoon on both sides of the House? Will he therefore give an undertaking that those responsible for the scurrilous campaign to save their own skins at the taxpayers' expense will receive the fullest possible scrutiny of the Department of the Environment and the district auditor?

Mr. Curry: I wish to make it absolutely clear that the kind of activity that has been reported is clearly wholly unacceptable. Whether or not people like the proposals by the Local Government Commission, the commission is free of party political colour. It would be entirely wrong if we were to introduce any note of party politics into the way in which the commission goes about its work, no matter what opinions we may form about its conclusions. Therefore, if people are going to try to gerrymander local opinion and give a false impression, it is clear that we will know about that and form our conclusions about what we believe to be genuine objective local opinion on the ground of all people and not necessarily those who are councillors, who work for the council or who have a special interest.

Urban Regeneration

Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further plans he has to assist the regeneration of urban areas.

Mr. Godsiff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on current urban policy.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his urban policies.

The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): The Government will continue to support the regeneration of cities through their main programmes and through special measures. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) welcomes the impact in his and other urban areas of measures such as city challenge, the urban development corporations, the urban partnership fund, city grant and estate action. The Tyne and Wear UDC alone has attracted more than £500 million to its area since 1987.

Mr. Byers: Is the Minister aware that, due to over-concentration in the property market during the late


1980s, six urban development corporations have made a loss of £67 million as a result of the drop in property values? What steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure that, in future, public money is used for job creation and not for property speculation?

Sir George Young: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not running down the excellent work of the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation in his constituency. There has been a net increase of more than 9,000 jobs in that area since the UDC started work. It has a budget of £37·5 million this year and is making progress in creating wealth, creating jobs and promoting enterprise in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Godsiff: Is the Minister aware that about 10,000 jobs and training places will be lost in Birmingham as a result of his decision to cancel the urban programme? Is he further aware that the city council spent £120,000 at his request to prepare the bids which he then cancelled at the last minute? Will he now apologise to the people of Birmingham and refund that £120,000?

Sir George Young: The urban programme has not been cancelled. It is spending £7 million this year in Small Heath and is sponsoring about 10,000 projects throughout the country, promoting enterprise and wealth. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome Birmingham's success with city challenge, representing £7·5 million each year, a total of £37·5 million creating wealth, prosperity and jobs in Birmingham. He should look at the total investment in Birmingham from the Government and not concentrate on one small part of it.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Liverpool, £17 million of urban programme money is being replaced by only £1·1 million of urban partnership, with the consequent destruction of more than 3,000 jobs? Is he further aware that in Dovecot in my constituency, investment in housing stock will now not be able to be supported by commensurate investment in the environment? What ideas does the Minister have to help the people of Dovecot improve their environment?

Sir George Young: Again, the hon. Lady's constituency was a successful bidder for city challenge, and the rewards for city challenge far outweigh the value of the urban programme. In addition to that, there is a housing action trust in Liverpool and we have the Merseyside task force and the urban development corporation. I urge the hon. Lady to look at the totality of investment by the Government in Liverpool. She will find that it has been very substantial indeed.

Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that Government as a whole are now putting about £4 billion per annum through targeted initiatives into urban areas in this country? Will he look at the important priorities in many urban areas, including in my constituency, and the need to help target the relatively high levels of inner town urban unemployment? I appreciate the way in which his Department is assisting in that work.
Will my right. hon. Friend also look at a matter about which he knows I am particularly concerned, and that is the difficulty with premises that are currently hotels which can be turned into hostels without seeking change of use planning permission? That issue is of great concern and is

having damaging effects on the legitimate tourism industry. I appreciate that he and his ministerial colleagues are aware of the position. I welcome their interest and hope that my right hon. Friend will examine the matter.

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He raised, in the latter part of his supplementary question, an issue that has been raised with me by a number of my hon. Friends who represent seaside resorts. I propose to discuss the subject with my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Social Security to see whether further steps might be necessary. I welcomed a note of sanity and perspective in the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question in relation to the debate on inner cities. It is indeed the case that since 1979 there has been a fourfold real increase in urban spending by my Department.

Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the better aspects, arising out of the list of grants to which he referred, is the flexibility with which grants are applied? Will he continue with that flexibility and imagination, especially as they are applied in Calder Valley?

Sir George Young: Yes, indeed. The Department is anxious to get the best value from its programmes. We have a competitive regime which rewards local authorities and voluntary organisations that put forward value-for-money schemes which bring with them private funding and create jobs in their areas. I shall look with interest at any projects coming from my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary, for urban programmes to succeed, to have efficient and honest local authorities? Is he convinced that the local authority of Lambeth is efficient or honest? Does he agree that it is high time that the commissioners were sent in to run that council in the way it was once run?

Sir George Young: Like my hon. Friend, I read the report prepared by the former chief executive, Herman Ouseley, on the London borough of Lambeth, and it contained a number of worrying allegations which, I know, are being followed up in the appropriate quarters. It is a matter for concern if any local authority misuses its ratepayers'; funds, and the appropriate avenues are available to people through the police or the district auditor.

Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister recall the last Conservative election manifesto, ironically entitled "The Best Future for Britain", which claimed that our cities had been transformed? After the abolition of the urban programme—as the Minister knows very well, there are to be no new schemes under that programme—and the loss of 34,000 inner city jobs, after the abandonment of city challenge, of which there is to be no third round, and after announcing savage cuts of more than one third in urban funding over the next three years, I am sure that the whole House agrees that our cities have indeed been transformed. Does not the Minister accept that it is high time the Government started to celebrate and support cities, instead of undermining them and denying them the resources that they so desperately need?

Sir George Young: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to come to the House and say such a thing. I have here a copy of The Guardian of 15 June, which, referring to the hon. Gentleman, says:
He also said that Labour had been neglecting the inner cities and needed a new strategy.
Those are not my words; they are the words of the hon. Gentleman. He went on to talk about the establishment of an inquiry called City 2020–2020 being, presumably, the earliest year in which he thinks a Labour Government will take office. This inquiry, for inspiration, is to start by looking at the socialist stewardship of areas such as Lambeth, Islington and Hackney.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend think again about his Department's refusal to grant housing action trust money to Copley close in my constituency, in respect of which a very good case was made? I hope that he will see that that very important and deserving estate is given the help that it greatly needs.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend and the London borough of Ealing are perfectly capable of putting forward another bid for estate action funds for that estate. We shall continue the estate action programme next year. If my hon. Friend would like to talk to the councillors and the director of housing of the borough and then resubmit the bid, we shall see whether, within resources, we can help.

Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the environmental implications that may arise from the operation of THORP; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, I have received a number of representations about the environmental implications that may arise from the operation of THORP.

Mr. Bruce: What is the basis of the current consultation period, why has it been extended, and what does the Secretary of State hope to find out? Does he agree that, because the Government are not prepared to underwrite the contracts and because the electricity companies are not prepared to sign them, the Government are in a cleft stick, which will result in non-viability for THORP or in a blank cheque that will cost us all dear? Are there not real doubts about the economic viability and environmental safety of THORP? Should not the matter be cleared up sooner rather than later? Why should all those people have their agony and uncertainty prolonged?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must accept that Parliament has put me and my right hon. Friend in the very clear position of having to assure ourselves before granting, or refusing to grant, the necessary powers to start up THORP. I shall treat my responsibilities as the House would want me to treat them. I shall take as little time as is necessary to do the job properly. I shall do it as quickly as possible, but not in a slap-dash way. That is what the hon. Gentleman must expect. He does not help the case by making extreme allegations in either direction. Special interests are pleading on both sides. My job is to uphold the public interest, together with my right hon. Friend.

Dr. Michael Clark: What representations about the environmental implications of not starting up the THORP

process has my right hon. Friend received? Does he accept that, even if we do away with THORP, the accumulated waste will not disappear and that, whatever we do in the future, it is far better to treat radioactive waste scientifically? THORP is a well-engineered, modern process intended to do just that, and it should be kept.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend expresses a particular point of view. Clearly, the Government and others put their particular points of view in the debate on THORP, and I know how strongly people hold their views. My job in these circumstances is clear: before I and my right hon. Friend allow THORP to go ahead, I must satisfy myself that it is in the public interest. That is what I intend to do and I shall do so in such a way that, whatever the result, people can see that it is done properly. It would be wrong for a parliamentarian to seek to hurry one beyond a point where one can take seriously the opposing arguments or to delay one, which would also be unacceptable. What I am trying to do is not easy; obviously it is not easy because both sides have strong views, and a great deal hangs on the decision. The one thing on which the public can depend is that the House has demanded that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are put in a quasi judicial position and that that position demands that we do not take a view until we have considered all the facts.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a constructive note, would the Secretary of State be prepared to consider supporting an authorisation to British Nuclear Fuels plc to undertake the commissioning of the uranium lines at THORP, particularly as it would mean that many jobs could be saved and also because BNFL has said that it is prepared to pay the £250,000 costs to decommission those lines in the event that, at the end of the day, THORP was not fully commissioned?

Mr. Gummer: I confess that I have a difficulty because the hon. Gentleman has, rather less constructively, already said that the Government are the reason for the problems. He said that he did not blame the company but that he blamed the Government whereas his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who is not a shadow agriculture spokesman—my right hon. Friend is a co-judge in the matter—said something quite different. He said:
I think the management of BNFL are using the workforce at Sellafield as a bit of a gun to hold to the Government's head.
I therefore find it very difficult to decide what members of Labour's Front Bench are saying about this matter. I had better tell the hon. Gentleman that I shall do everything I can to carry out what I need to do with my right hon. Friend as rapidly as is consonant with doing the job properly. At the same time, if BNFL wishes a variation in its present authorisation, it must make the proposal to HM inspectorate as the law requires.
I remind the House that the problem is that we have always known that this type of decision is not easy. We therefore have a very clear procedure to follow. Although I know that it is disappointing for members of all parties, I am determined to adhere to the rules and regulations; otherwise, what the House has sought as a protection of the public interest would not exist. My job is to protect the public interest against what are necessarily sectional interests, either those of Greenpeace or of BNFL.

Government Building Contracts

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions he has reached on the need for a pay-when-paid clause in Government building contracts.

Mr. Baldry: I am not considering any such clause. Government contracts are required to contain a clause committing the supplier or contractor to pay his subcontractors promptly.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that many companies across the country have full order books and are profitable but that they unfortunately cannot get paid? Will he assure me that the Government will set an example by paying their bills on time? Does he agree that the lot opposite know nothing about paying bills as their bills are paid by the National Union of Public Employees, the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National and Local Government Officers Association, among others? Does he agree that the label "No say, no pay" hangs very well around their necks?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those who do good work deserve to be paid promptly. All Government contracts include provision for the prompt payment by main contractors of their subcontractors, usually within 30 days of receipt.

Mr. Henderson: The Minister will be aware that there is a great deal of concern among many subcontracting companies, including small companies in the building industry, that they are not getting a fair deal as subcontractors to main contractors for Government contracts. Will the Minister be honest with the House and acknowledge that the reason for contractual arrangements

not being sufficiently tough is that main contractors, such as Tarmac, have received favours from the Government in their attempts to privatise the Property Services Agency?

Mr. Baldry: That is a ludicrous suggestion. As a Minister who sponsors the construction industry, my only ambition is to see the healthiest possible construction industry. That aim is something which the Labour party would not understand, however, because when it was last in government, it introduced a moratorium on many infrastructure contracts. We have clear Government contracts that stipulate that subcontractors should be paid within 30 days of their bills being presented.

Local Government

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what weight he will give to local opinion in Gloucestershire in arriving at decisions on local government structure in the county.

Mr. Curry: The Local Government Commission's final reports must demonstrate that due weight has been given to community identities and interests.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities are packing public meetings with their own staff? Is he further aware that certain local authorities distribute their own counter literature when distributing the Local Government Commission's literature? Will my hon. Friend ensure that those practices are fully discounted, and that the public have their fair say in the commission's decision on local government reorganisation?

Mr. Curry: I am determined that the final conclusion should rest upon the genuinely expressed wishes of local people, and not upon any rigging of that opinion.

Serious Fraud Office

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement following the resignation statement made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—concerning the conduct of the prosecution of Mr. Asil Nadir by the Serious Fraud Office.
As to the background, on 16 December 1990, and subsequently on 22 October 1991, Mr. Asil Nadir was charged with a series of serious offences. On 7 February 1992, the case was transferred to the Crown court. A preliminary hearing was held on 28 February 1992 in front of the trial judge. He indicated on that occasion that it was his view that trial should take place in September 1992. On the application of the defence, who sought further time, the trial date was fixed, first for 8 March 1993 and, subsequently, following a further application by the defence, for 13 September 1993.
On 4 May 1993, Mr. Nadir fled the jurisdiction and went to Northern Cyprus in breach of his bail conditions. It is the intention of the prosecution to bring Mr. Nadir to trial as soon as that can be effected, and a trial is still fixed for 4 October 1993.
One of my duties as Attorney-General, with an overall purview of the prosecution process in England and Wales, and statutory supervision of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office, is to do all that I can to see that the prosecution process is conducted fairly and properly, so that alleged wrongdoers can be brought to trial and that their trial, wholly under the control of the independent judiciary, can be fairly and expeditiously carried out.
It is essential to bear in mind the respective limits of my own role, the role of Parliament and the role of the media. The control of the conduct of the trial is for the independent judiciary. Ultimately, questions as to the propriety of the prosecution and the fairness of the trial, including decisions upon any representations by a defendant's legal adviser that a trial cannot fairly be conducted, are for the courts and the courts alone.
In the context of my role as Attorney-General, it is perfectly proper for an hon. Member to make representations to me about any anxieties he or she may have concerning the conduct of a prosecution. Such representations are carefully and dispassionately examined. Between September 1991 and 10 May 1993, initially with my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire did so.
On a number of occasions, both in writing and orally—on which occasions the meetings were carefully noted by an official—he raised with me a number of concerns and allegations, each of which I caused to be carefully examined with the appropriate authority or body, and following which I wrote to my hon. Friend in some detail.
Yesterday in his resignation statement, my hon. Friend made public his anxieties, going into a good deal of detail in his own way, and called for what he described as an independent inquiry. I wish to explain briefly to the House how his concerns have been dealt with to date and why I do not believe that any such further and separate inquiry

is called for or appropriate, and deal with the question of the publication of the correspondence, which I intend to place in the Library of the House in due course.
In doing so, I am intensely conscious, as the House will be, of the need to keep separate the roles of Parliament and the political process and the role of the judiciary. I believe, Madam Speaker, that you were entirely right to be anxious about potential breaches of our sub judice rule, and it is only in the exceptional circumstances that I ask your discretion to enable me to deal, albeit briefly, with the points raised yesterday by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend has, in summary, raised the following issues. He has accused the Serious Fraud Office of improperly seeking to harass and prejudice the defendant by allegedly tipping off the media as to the times and places of arrests and other aspects of the investigation; refusing to give proper consideration to a report prepared by the accountants Binder Hamlyn for the defence and failing to make proper inquiries in Northern Cyprus; improperly opening privileged documents; the allegedly improper seizure by the trustee in bankruptcy of Asil Nadir's papers and certain personal effects; and improper pressures allegedly brought by the Serious Fraud Office on the judge. I caused each of those matters to be investigated, and, in necessarily brief summary, the answers are as follows.
The assertions of improper briefing have all been carefully investigated. None was accompanied by any tangible or verifiable evidence from my hon. Friend. On the initial occasion involving the fall of the Polly Peck share price, the press were not even present until after that fall, and the raid had been in progress for some considerable time.
It is correct that two bags containing some privileged documents, among others, were opened in error by some police officers. The privileged documents were not copied; they were returned after the issue of privilege had been determined by an independent silk. The papers and effects seized by the trustee in bankruptcy were seized pursuant to an order of the court.
The report of Binder Hamlyn is part of the defence case. The Serious Fraud Office has had no opportunity to scrutinise the supporting documents. Assertions that their removal to this country would contravene local Cypriot law have been refuted by independent Cypriot legal advice. The Serious Fraud Office has been unable to obtain permission for its officers to investigate the case in Northern Cyprus, as each informal application has been met by the response that approaches must be through diplomatic channels, which the House will appreciate do not exist in the absence of formal recognition of the Republic of Northern Cyprus.
The alleged conspiracy to bribe the judge is the subject of a separate police investigation under the supervision not of the Serious Fraud Office but of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not propose to say more about it. as it has been dealt with in court, either in camera or subject to reporting restrictions.
With the exception of the publicity surrounding the arrests and other investigations, all these matters relate essentially to the court proceedings. Their substance and any effect that they may have on the fairness of the trial is essentially a matter for the trial judge.
Mr. Nadir has throughout, until he departed the jurisdiction, been represented by highly experienced solicitors and counsel; and, indeed, many of these matters have already been canvassed to a greater or lesser extent


with the court. I am of the clear view that it is mistaken and wholly inimical to our justice system to set up a so-called independent inquiry into the handling of such matters in parallel to a trial.
I now turn to the question of the publication of the correspondence. As the House knows, I have hitherto resisted such publication. The matters it contained were properly raised with me with the objective of seeing that the defendant's prosecution and trial were fairly handled. Inevitably, it deals with a number of issues that have been or may be raised in the preparatory hearings or the trial, which could run the risk of confusing the issues, or, from certain viewpoints, reflecting adversely on the defendant.
Thus, although the correspondence was not secret, and copies are undoubtedly in the hands of not only my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire my office, and the Serious Fraud Office, but Mr. Nadir's advisers, legal and otherwise, and Mr. Nadir, it did not seem to me at that stage that a responsible person should court unnecessary media attention by placing them in the public domain.
However, following the partial publication of so much of their substance by my hon. Friend yesterday in his statement, and the fact that the rest of the correspondence is likely to be the subject of intense search and speculation, it now seems to me that, subject to certain editing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—it is better that the correspondence should be published. I am therefore arranging to place copies in the Library as soon as possible.
Editing will be confined to two points. First, the names of individuals who happen to be mentioned but whose involvement is purely peripheral have been deleted in order to respect their privacy. Having taken the advice of counsel, deletions will also be made covering the alleged conspiracy to bribe the judge, which is the subject of the continuing police investigation under the supervision of the Director of Public Prosecutions and which has been dealt with in court, either in camera or subject to reporting restrictions. I make it clear at once that it has revealed no credible evidence implicating the judge personally in any way.
In conclusion, the matters raised by my hon. Friend in the past 18 months have already been carefully and dispassionately examined. There is no precedent or justification for an independent inquiry in parallel to the trial. There is no justification for the defendant staying away. Any submissions about the fairness of his trial are matters for the judge and the courts alone.

Mr. John Fraser: Attacking the integrity of the prosecution is a fairly standard line of defence. Can we assume that the Attorney-General considers such matters carefully and dispassionately, but also with a healthy scepticism, especially as substantial amounts of money have been paid by Mr. Asil Nadir in past years? Perhaps it is right to say that the integrity of the Serious Fraud Office was certainly not in doubt when it strongly opposed bail for the defendant in this case.
Having said that, does the Attorney-General recognise the legitimate anxiety about the use of the wide powers of the Serious Fraud Office, the width of the charges that it often lays and its potential to exploit the media, especially in high-profile cases?
I understand what the Attorney-General has said about alerting the media in the case, but I hope that he will recognise that there are three dangers. It is wrong for either the Serious Fraud Office or the police to give advance

notice. of high-profile arrests for two reasons. The first is that such publicity is often more akin to a big fight than a long trial. It can prejudice the case and cause the conviction of innocent people. But equally there is a danger that it could bring about the acquittal of those who otherwise might be found guilty. So there are dangers both ways.
Does the Attorney-General recognise that there have been many cases, including the Nadir case, in which there appears to have been far too much coincidence between a high-profile arrest, sometimes in the early hours, and the press, including television, being present? Will he give that matter serious attention, in view of the effect that it is likely to have on the fairness of trials?
I welcome the publication of the correspondence. I understand the necessity for some editing to preserve the possibility of a fair trial, if that ever takes place. Will the publication include letters from all Members of Parliament who wrote to him, and not merely the ones from the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates)?
I repeat the question that I put to the Attorney-General last week on whether any of the letters contained declarations of interest by the hon. Members who made representations to him. I understand that it is our proper practice to disclose interests when we make representations on cases such as the Nadir case.
The Attorney-General dealt today with the allegations of bribery and of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice that were raised yesterday, and said that they were being investigated. We are dealing with a case where a substantial sum was paid to the Conservative party. With hindsight, one could say that it might well have been with some expectation. Substantial sums must have been paid to fly the defendant out of the country. There is a question mark hanging over the source of bail and surety moneys.
Under all those circumstances, the Attorney-General is right to examine these matters. There must be the greatest concern if there is also any evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I know that the Attorney-General wants to restrict himself on these matters, but can he say how much of a prima facie case there is? What is the strength of the evidence available to him? When—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] These matters concern the House. When will he report back to the House on these matters?
My last question is this: so that no cloud hangs over any of these investigations and no suspicion attaches to any Member of Parliament, will the Attorney-General recommend to his colleagues in the Conservative party and on the Front Bench that the £440,000 paid to the Conservative party is now returned?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has approached this matter, particularly in that his questions deal with the substance of the case. He is right to say that to attack the prosecution is a fairly standard form of defence. The prosecutor must look at the case dispassionately, and sometimes coldly.
Prosecutions are carried out without fear or favour, affection or ill will, and contributions to any political party in this country would not be taken into account by any Attorney-General or any independent prosecuting authority. I hope that I will continue to carry on what I consider


to be an unsullied tradition, which I am sure is carried on by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Serious Fraud Office. I rule that out utterly.
The powers of the SFO are wide and general. Although they do not arise specifically today, I believe that they are necessary. We are dealing with the investigation of frauds and potential frauds by people in the City and elsewhere who have the stewardship of enormous sums of other people's money. It is right that they should be open to careful, detailed and penetrating scrutiny.
The hon. Gentleman asked about advance tip-offs of arrests or other aspects of an investigation. I deplore, and the director of the SFO and the whole House deplore, any tip-offs that lead to unnecessary publicity. I have raised the matter with the director of the SFO and I know that he has raised it repeatedly with his staff. There is no tangible evidence to point the finger.
The House, and those experienced in criminal matters, will realise that necessarily some advance warning to people properly involved must be given of many or most of these matters. There are all too many areas from which either a tip-off can be obtained or a clever inference drawn by those with plenty of time and money to chase up these matters. I deplore that, and the SFO will do everything it can to prevent it. That is as much as I can say on that.
On the publication of the correspondence, I think that I am right that one should not publish the correspondence in general. Hon. Members should be able to approach me in private and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Well, if hon. Members wish to, that is entirely a matter for them. Issues in the trial should be capable of being investigated dispassionately and carefully without the waters being muddied by unnecessary publicity.
Whether any individual Member who makes a representation to the Law Officers chooses to make that public is for them. I do not intend to publicise or publish the other letters that have been sent, but from whichever part of the House they have come, they have come perfectly properly.
On the question of the police investigation into the alleged conspiracy relating to the bribery of the judge, it is a continuing investigation and will be evaluated when the police make a report. It would not be proper for me to say more about it at present.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept our thanks for a prompt, thorough and careful statement, in the best traditions of his office? Does he agree that there is always a danger, when Back Benchers of all parties get carried away with their enthusiasm for the rights or wrongs that may exist in some judicial process, that ultimately we shall achieve the pollution of the pure stream of justice? We must be careful that what we do is not counter-productive.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the fact that the best course in these matters is to let the lawyers and judicial process deal with all those issues at the time of the trial, if there is one?

The Attorney-General: I am most grateful for what my hon. and learned Friend has said. He is entirely right. Questions of justice and of trials are matters not for this House but for the courts.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has decided to make this statement to the House and to publish the correspondence, subject to the necessary editing to which he referred. However, I suspect that those will not be his final words on the working practices of the SFO.
Although we sympathise with and share his concern at present not to prejudice the criminal proceedings against Asil Nadir by widening and further opening up his own investigations of which he has spoken, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that the disquiet about the SFO—not only in this case—will not evaporate without a timely and full inquiry into its modes of operation?

The Attorney-General: No. With respect, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. A great deal of inaccurate and unfair comment is made about the SFO's activities. It is not altogether surprising. One must remember that the people with whom it has to deal and who are charged with serious offences are capable of defending themselves at all levels—not improperly, but they are able to make representations about the kinds of questions that they are asked to answer, whether inside or outside a court. It was this House that decided that the powers should be given to the SFO, and I believe that those powers are exercised impartially and fairly.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: When my right hon. and learned Friend calls for an inquiry to be made into allegations about the operation of agencies under his responsibility, is it the agency that investigates itself? If so, is that the most satisfactory way of assuring public confidence that that is appropriate? Could it not be self-serving?

The Attorney-General: The straight answer to my hon. Friend is, very often, yes, it is. I went straight away to the director of the Serious Fraud Office and asked him to have these matters extremely carefully looked into. He is a very senior and independent public official. Just as his predecessor was a most distinguished Queen's counsel, now the Director of Public Prosecutions, so he was a leading member and senior partner of one of the largest and most highly respected firms of solicitors in the country. He did not come into his office to abuse his position, and he is the person who, inevitably, can best instigate an investigation in such a case.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General accept that the Serious Fraud Office should perhaps adopt the practice of the commercial division of the City of London police of yesteryear, who merely asked a defendant to attend at a police station with a solicitor? That got over all the publicity. Does he not also feel that asking the SFO to investigate itself is a bit like asking a police superintendent to investigate himself? Is it not wiser to call in outside bodies, just as we do with the police force?

The Attorney-General: I shall deal first with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It would seldom be wiser to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests. While any public body and any individual must expect to be open to scrutiny if the House thinks it right from time to time, it would normally be extremely disruptive to the prosecution process, and would be an easy card to play by those who wished, for whatever reason, to avoid conviction.
The hon. Gentleman asked about arresting people or otherwise interviewing them by arrangement. That frequently happens, but whether it happens in any particular case—arrests are operational matters for the police—must be an operational decision on each occasion.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider that many of the activities, events and statements of the past 48 hours may be a smokescreen hiding the real issue? That issue is that many pensioners and shareholders in Polly Peck have lost £100 million or more in places abroad from which the money cannot be brought back.
In that context, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the objectives of the Serious Fraud Office, and whether it serves the public interest? Will he consider that what we want is a prosecuting organisation that can bring cases to trial sooner, and also take part in the recovery process in a more efficient manner than has been evident to date?

The Attorney-General: The object of the Serious Fraud Office is to investigate effectively and promptly very complex matters of national and international fraud. I have been involved, directly and indirectly, in these matters for more than 13 years, and I have seen developments through the original fraud investigation groups to the setting up of the Serious Fraud Office. For all the criticism, often uninformed, about the Serious Fraud Office, the speed and efficiency with which major cases are now brought to trial differ enormously from the position 10 years ago.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the Attorney-General has raised the subject of publishing, I hope that he intends to publish the names of all those MPs from whichever side they come. Will he also publish a detailed account of what the Lord Chancellor and Asil Nadir said when they had that discussion? Is it not rather odd that the man who sits on the woolsack during the day turned up to meet Nadir after he had fled from bail, although nobody else would have the attention of the Lord Chancellor?
That is why, although the Attorney-General might convince some Conservative Members about what this is all about, the people out there in the country believe that the connection between Asil Nadir, the Tory party and all that money was why he was able to flee this country, with the help of the people in the establishment.

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman would do a little more homework, he would not ask such idiotic questions in the House. There is no question of the Lord Chancellor having gone to meet Mr. Nadir, and if the hon. Gentleman had bothered to read any newspaper on the subject, he would know that, and would not have asked that question for the second time in about 10 days. I assure the House that the names that are edited out of the correspondence do not relate to Members of Parliament in any way.

Sir Anthony Grant (Carnbridgeshire, South-West): Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that concern about tip-offs to the press before a raid or an arrest are not confined to one side of the House? It is a matter of concern, and it damages natural justice. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it absolutely clear to the prosecuting

authorities that the person who is the head and in charge must take responsibility for such leaks, and that if he does not, he will have to go?
Is my right hon. and learned Friend also aware that there is concern about the way in which prosecutions generally have taken place in recent years? Although they have to be independent, there is an impression that sometimes they are rather like a loose cannon rolling about. In that context, will he have another look at the evidence given by Customs and Excise to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and at the evidence given by his predecessor in relation to the supergun inquiry, because that revealed a rather curious method of prosecution in our society?

The Attorney-General: I recognise what my hon. Friend says. First, I wholly agree with him—as do the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions—that those tip-offs are thoroughly undesirable. No member of their staff is under any illusion as to that.
Having said that, those matters have been carefully looked into, and it is often completely unfair just to point the finger at the staff. In cases where it is well known that an arrest is likely at some stage, there is close media attention and, naturally enough, the media make every possible effort to try to find out when the arrest will be and it is quite difficult to conceal. However, I entirely take my hon. Friend's point, in principle.
As to prosecutions by the Serious Fraud Office being a loose cannon, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would write or speak to me to let me know any particular points that he has in mind; they will be carefully considered. I think that many of the allegations are unfairly made, but I would certainly look at any that he has in mind.
In relation to the question of Customs and Excise and the DTI, that is already a matter of record, but I understand my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: What term is there to the pursuit of this projected trial, and when would this sub judice rule lapse? As regards the correspondence, why does the Attorney-General refer to "all parts of the House", when he knows perfectly well that no one on this side of the House put in any applications on behalf of Asil Nadir?

Hon. Members: How do you know?

The Attorney-General: The sub judice rule is a matter for you, Madam Speaker. Briefly, we regard matters as sub judice while they are outstanding matters before the courts. As to the question of who did or did not make representations to me, I am in a better position to know than the hon. Gentleman.

Hon. Members: Name them.

Sir James Kilfedder: Will the Attorney-General tell the Serious Fraud Office that it should be more energetic in pursuing fraudsters who take tens and hundreds of millions of pounds from shareholders and others? Will he please assist the House by stating which members of political parties have made representations to him on behalf of Mr. Nadir?

The Attorney-General: Dealing with that second matter—it seems to be a matter of intense interest to the House—no representation that has been made to me has been in


any way improper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them, then."] No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because if I set a precedent of naming people—[Interruption.]—I can look round the Chamber and see people who have made proper representations to me on a variety of cases. I shall stick firmly to what I believe to be the proper procedure.
As to the question of the Serious Fraud Office properly pursuing fraudsters, that is its role. I believe that it does so carefully. If the hon. Gentleman knows of particular points where he thinks that it is not doing so, no doubt he will make representations to me and again I will look into them.

Mr. David Trimble: I am sure that the right thing has been done through the publication of the letters. May I, however, refer the Attorney-General back to the publication of one of the letters in a newspaper last week? What inquiries have been made, or can be made, to try to trace the source of the leak? It must be a matter of very grave concern if there is any suspicion that a letter was leaked by public officials to get rid of an awkward questioner.

The Attorney-General: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, if there were any question of a letter being leaked by a public official, it would be very serious. I think that most, if not all, public officials fully appreciate that. Those letters were not secret. As my statement has already revealed, they were likely to have been in the hands of quite a large number of people. One has to be a little bit sanguine about these leak inquiries, which are not easy to carry out. I make it quite clear to the hon. Gentleman that I deplore leaks.
In the light of the statement yesterday, it seems sensible to publish as a whole but, in principle, I believe, and shall continue to believe, that it is right that, if hon. Members make representations to me about the handling of an individual case, I shall not without their leave publish the substance of that correspondence, unless they choose first to make it public.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the sub judice rule, whereby we do not comment in this House on outstanding legal matters and criminal proceedings, is a crucial protection for the defendant and for the independence of our judicial system? Does he agree that this afternoon we have perhaps seen the tip of the iceberg of what might emerge if that rule were abandoned? Will he please ensure that he is not drawn further into the issue?

The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said. The separation of powers—the different functions, the different rules of this House and of Parliament, the political process generally and the independence of the courts—is extremely important, and our sub judice rule is designed to that end.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Attorney-General accept that some people believe that double standards are developing in serious fraud trials, with defendants able to plead temporary Alzheimer's to bring a trial to an end?
In view of the propaganda on behalf of Asil Nadir—a person who is not prepared to face justice, whose representatives asked for deferment of the court hearing,

and who fled bail in the most unscrupulous, unprincipled and disgraceful manner—can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that he will use every endeavour and will remain firm in his determination to bring serious fraudsters to justice?
In that light, surely he accepts that, to emphasise his independence in pursuit of that aim, the party of which he is a member should return all those moneys that it has received from people who are facing charges or have been convicted of serious fraud?

The Attorney-General: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in my office, I shall do everything that I can to assist the administration of justice and the bringing to justice of wrongdoers of this sort and all other sorts. The last part of the question is not a matter for me.
On the hon. Gentleman's question whether a particular defendant should have his trial stopped or whether someone's prison sentence should be reduced because of illness, as perceived by the courts, that is entirely a matter for the independent courts.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that one of the worms in the fabric of government that needs urgent attention is the improper leaking of documents by people in a position of trust. I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend could say—it would be helpful if he could confirm—that neither his office nor the Serious Fraud Office had anything to do with the leaking to the press of the letter from my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates).

The Attorney-General: I have absolutely no reason to think that either office had anything to do with it, and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend when he deplores it.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Can the Attorney-General understand that the nature and extent of representations made to him by Members of this House is a matter of public interest, because it enables us to determine whether the way that the matter has been treated is exceptional or normal? Therefore, can he tell us how many hon. Members have made representations to him, whether they are Ministers or Back Benchers—one Minister has lost his job—and whether he makes any distinction in the representations he receives between those that come directly from the hon. Member whose constituent is the subject of the charges, those that come from a public relations company acting on behalf of an individual, and those that come from an hon. Member who just happens to have a passing interest in the subject?
Above all, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us his assessment—people are entitled to know—whether what seems to be at any rate an exceptional degree of direct representation by letter and by personal meetings with him about this case is, in fact, exceptional or normal? If it is exceptional, he should tell the House.

The Attorney-General: On the last point, I can tell the House that the degree of representation was exceptional. I believe it to have been bona fide. Having heard the statement yesterday, I think that the House believes it to have been bona fide. As I have said in my statement today, the matter was carefully and dispassionately looked into.
On the question of how many other hon. Members have made representations, I have already answered a number of similar parliamentary questions, and I have nothing to


add to my answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). All representations, from whichever hon. Member they come and it-they seem to have substance, will be looked at with equal care.

Mr. Toby Jessel: On the question of how to bring Mr. Nadir back to Britain to stand trial, in view of Britain's non-recognition of Northern Cyprus but its excellent relations with Turkey, is my right hon. and learned Friend in a position to say whether our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is considering making further representations to Turkey with a view to the Turks also saying something to Northern Cyprus?

The Attorney-General: No. I do not think I can say anything on that subject. With some countries we have extradition treaties; with others we have not.

Mr. Tony Worthington: One can understand what the Attorney-General is saying about the undesirability of having an inquiry at the same time as a trial, but there is unfortunately one missing ingredient for the trial—we do not have Mr. Asil Nadir—and Turkey is not going to vote for Christmas. What will the Attorney-General do to investigate these serious matters if it is clear that there will be no trial?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question. At the moment, it is certainly my hope that there will be a trial, and there is still a trial date fixed. I repeat that there is no justification for the defendant remaining away. Any representation that he wishes to make about the fairness of his trial should be made to the court.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Serious Fraud Office must be properly equipped and resourced to deal fully with rich and powerful individuals? Without the likes of Mr. Nadir, we would not need a Serious Fraud Office.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Serious Fraud Office was set up partly because of a number of cases, which the House will have in mind, in which people who had at their disposal large sums of money—all too often, other people's money—departed to other parts of the world and managed to avoid prosecution. Since the Serious Fraud Office came into being, fewer of those people have been so effective. It has a very good record of careful and effective prosecution.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Attorney-General agree that, for the Serious Fraud Office, which is an important institution, to be effective in the detection of serious fraud, it must have full public confidence? Does he agree that concern arises not only from the Nadir case?
I know that he is aware that, in relation to another matter which I will not name, last year a professional officer of the Serious Fraud Office forged a letter or fax purporting to come from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). Is he aware that the explanation given by the Serious Fraud Office for that outrageous forgery was that it was an April fool joke?
Is the Attorney-General aware that the lack of any disciplinary proceedings of any meaning in that matter is profoundly unsatisfactory, and does he not agree that the disquiet which was mentioned earlier about the

organisation and conduct of the Serious Fraud Office will continue at least until a thorough review of its conduct—perhaps a private review—is carried out?

The Attorney-General: Starting with the last part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, no, I do not agree with that latter point. It is easy and understandable that people should criticise the Serious Fraud Office, and that those who are under investigation by it, or whose friends are under investigation by it, should often feel critical and express that criticism. The Serious Fraud Office carries out its work professionally and carefully.
There was a serious lapse from that standard in a grave error of misjudgment, about which I have apologised personally to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. I have looked into it very carefully, and it was dealt with internally by the office. It was a very serious error of judgment, but it was not a matter of dishonesty or anything of that nature; it was a stupid thing to do, but the water should not be muddied. In general, the Serious Fraud Office does its work diligently and scrupulously.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Is it not clear that some elements on the Opposition Benches really want a system of televised political show trials, with the opportunity for them to play starring roles? In the interests of justice, will my right hon. and learned Friend resist that process with all the vigour at his disposal?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend makes the important point that the House, which is normally restrained on matters of judicial proceedings, is wise to be so restrained.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend persist in not disclosing other names? All of us, myself included, frequently write to him and to his colleagues at the Home Office about our constituents who are in trouble. Frequently, we are also asked by other hon. Members to write on behalf of their constituents, and we are asked to write on behalf of constituents of other hon. Members in support of their Member of Parliament. If that system is to persist, and if that form of justice is to continue, we cannot have names leaked, either positively or secretly.

The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that people who have public jobs, whether that job is as the director of the Serious Fraud Office, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or the Attorney-General, should be trusted in their work. If they are found to have done their work improperly, they should resign. If hon. Members write to me in confidence, their confidence will be respected.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Reflecting on the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), the Attorney-General said that he hoped that there would be a trial. Is not that just a little disingenuous? What is the basis for that hope? If a Law Officer of the Crown says that there is a hope of a trial, presumably there is some basis for that hope. What is the basis?

The Attorney-General: There is no justification for the defendant in this case to stay away. There is no justification for any defendant to flee their bail. While I


cannot say whether the defendant will return, I hope and trust that he will, and if he does, I believe that he will be fairly tried.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No, not yet. I call Mr. John Fraser.

Mr. Fraser: Will the Attorney-General clear up one ambiguity that may have unintentionally crept into his answers? Can he confirm that he has had no representations from Labour Members of Parliament?

The Attorney-General: I think that I ought to stick to my principles and not say from where I have received representations. No representation that I have received from anywhere has been, in my view, in any way improper.

Points of Order

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you explain to the House the proper way in which personal statements are made by hon. Members? Yesterday, I thought that, although the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) had matters of great importance to raise, they did not seem relevant to a personal statement.
I understood that such statements were meant to be explanations of why Ministers felt it necessary to resign. I thought that the statement yesterday put the House, and especially you, Madam Speaker, in a difficult position. It may be that the whole nature and purpose of personal statements ought to be reviewed, or at the least clarified.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You may recall that I asked you yesterday to consider the way in which personal statements are vetted and agreed by the Speaker before their delivery and, in return, the personal statement is allowed to be made without interruption. I understand that that is not the case with personal statements about resignations. Have you been able to give some thought to asking the Procedure Committee to look into the matter, with a view to making all personal statements subject to the prior agreement of the Speaker of the day?

Madam Speaker: Let me try to help the House. Personal statements are vetted by the Speaker. Resignation statements are not vetted by the Speaker. I have no authority whatever to vet such a statement, nor did I vet the statement yesterday.
There is a lot of disquiet in the House about such statements. I have received a letter from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, which I have not yet had the opportunity to read, but I believe that it suggests that the Committee may well look into that whole area. I am sure that many hon. Members will welcome the Procedure Committee's initiative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I hope that I have laid this matter to rest. I want no further points of order upon it.

Mr. David Martin: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that, yesterday, the Prime Minister raised with the Leader of the Opposition a document on Northern Ireland by the official Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland, in which he proposed, in effect, constitutionally abandoning the Northern Irish people.
Since then, confusion has reigned, with some newspapers saying that his leader is going to back him, and others saying that he should be disowned. I wonder whether you have had a request for a statement, either from the Opposition's Northern Ireland spokesman or from the Leader of the Opposition, so that we can clear it up once and for all?

Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me, but I have received no such request for a statement.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I refer you to the 21st edition of "Erskine May", page 230, where the manner of


taking the oath, affirmation in lieu of oath and the penalties for omission to take the oath are set out. The form of the oath is:
I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
As you know, Madam Speaker, if a Member does not wish to take the oath, he or she can affirm.
The penalties for omitting to take the oath or to affirm are:
any Member of the House of Commons who votes as such, or sits during any debate after the Speaker has been chosen, without having taken the oath, is subject to the same penalty, and his seat is also vacated in the same manner as if he were dead.
In the Commons it is necessary to move a new writ immediately the omission—

Madam Speaker: Order. We are very interested in what "Erskine May" says. I read it regularly, but I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would come to the point of order for me.

Mr. Garnier: You anticipated me, Madam Speaker, by two seconds.
In view of what is said in "Erskine May", can you advise the House whether the proposal mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin)—that Ulster should become an independent state and share sovereignty with the presidency of the Irish Republic—constitutes a revocation of the oath, and what consequences should flow from it?

Madam Speaker: That is a very interesting use of the time of the House before we reach the ten-minute motion.

Mr. Charles Hendry: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. There is no "Further to that point of order." If it is a new point of order, I shall of course hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hendry: It is on a different aspect of that point of order.

Madam Speaker: No, I have dealt with it.

Medical Act 1983 (Amendment)

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Medical Act 1983 to permit the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council to take action in specified circumstances in respect of conduct of a medical practitioner which they judge to be unacceptable professional conduct; and for connected purposes.
In simple language, the Bill would give greater optional and discretionary powers to the professional conduct committee of the General Medical Council than those that it currently possesses. I want to make it absolutely clear from the start that this is not an anti-doctor Bill or an anti-GMC Bill. It would give greater protection to the medical profession, and enhance whatever reputation the General Medical Council has at the moment.
The Bill further assumes that there is merit in, and that there will be a continuation of, self-regulation as a means of regulating the profession. That is considered by many to be preferable to any other alternative.
I am sure that the whole House agrees that only a very small number of doctors need to be involved in the sometimes controversial disciplinary procedures of the General Medical Council, and that the overwhelming proportion of the profession deserves the thanks and full respect of the public, whose protection is the advertised prime function of the GMC.
The Bill arises from two cases in my constituency, which I believe have revealed a lacuna in the aforementioned Act that gave the GMC its statutory powers.
Many hon. Members have had similar difficulties. I first introduced this Bill in the 1984–85 Session, and I introduced it in four subsequent Sessions. This is the sixth occasion on which it has been before the House. On 3 March 1987, I introduced a Bill under the ten-minute rule, as reported at column 757 of Hansard. This is an across-the-Floor motion, which has nothing whatever to do with other political matters.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) is in his place. He referred to a specific constituency case on 24 July 1985. On 25 March 1986, at column 842 of Hansard, he told the House about a distressing case in his constituency of the daughter of a well-known constituent of his, who had returned home from playing badminton. She was a healthy person aged 22. She had complained of pains and was given an injection for a strained ligament. Unfortunately, diagnosis did not take place, and the young lady died as a result of acute septicemia about three or four days later.
I have another sponsor in my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). He is known to us as "Mr." but in the medical world that title denotes a consultant neuro-surgeon. He is a former member of the General Medical Council. In the past, this Bill has also been sponsored by Dr. Maurice Miller, a former Member of Parliament well known to many here.
The British Medical Association has passed a resolution not to oppose the Bill, and I know of no Member of Parliament, other than those who for a time have sat on the Treasury Bench in a certain capacity, who oppose it. I rather suspect that, when the Bill has been opposed over the years—perhaps by a Treasury representative on a Friday afternoon—that was because


the GMC was not happy with the amendment of the Medical Act 1983, as it has other proposals which it believes would deal with the matter more effectively. I do not think that its view is correct, and I shall explain why.
The Bill, which the GMC has been preparing over the past two or three years, after extensive discussion inside the medical profession, deals with the related but not specific case of the performance of medical practitioners in respect of their general profession, and it might be able to take on board some of the complaints that reach the GMC. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House, that that is parallel to the disciplinary procedure and is not connected directly with it, certainly under current statutes.
To understand the Bill, I must explain what I regard as the lacuna within it, which I think was unintentional when it was passed in 1983. Under the Medical Act 1983, the only charge that can be made by the professional conduct committee against a medical practitioner is one of serious professional misconduct. The complaint reaches the PPC only after three stages of sifting. When it reaches the committee, those hearings are in public.
However, the problem is that, when the GMC conducts its own case against a practitioner, it says that the conduct must be related to certain forms of action. It says that the first consideration of the PPC is to determine whether or not the alleged misconduct has been found to be correct and proven. If the matters are found proven, the PPC has a further stage in its consideration: given that the allegation is proven, does it amount to serious professional misconduct? Only if it decides that it amounts to serious professional misconduct has it any penalties or sanctions of any sort other than the publicity available.
I am not a great one for penalties. I believe that remedies are sometimes better. The least remedy available to the GMC where serious professional misconduct is found is conditional registration or a reprimand. In effect, a conditional registration says, "Carry on doctor, but…" Certain actions are then specified for the doctor, such as to attend courses, not to perform certain activities, and to have conversations with the chairman of his local medical committee from time to time. Those actions can be varied case by case.
However, if the GMC does not find that the charges proved amount to serious professional misconduct, it cannot do anything, even if it finds that there has been professional misconduct as such or, as in the case of my

late young constituent Alfie Turner in 1982, if it finds that there has been unacceptable professional conduct. The council can say that that is the case, but it has no power, because there is no relevant power in the Medical Act 1983 for the GMC to act.
That lack of power, where there is manifest professional incompetence which is seen and open, and where the charges found have been proved correct, causes public disquiet and disquiet inside the profession.
I have discussed the matter with the GMC and its presidents over many years. I informed the current president of the GMC that I was going to move my Bill today for the sixth time. He sent me a letter which refers to a letter which he sent me on 29 September, in which he says that it would not be timely to accept my Bill because it would not
be in the long-term public interest for the introduction of these procedures to be delayed"—
that is, while a new comprehensive Bill is being considered—
or in any way hampered by the introduction of an alternative amending the Medical Act.
However, my Bill is not an alternative. It will remedy a manifest and continuing defect in our legislation.
I wrote to the president of the GMC on 10 June, and I have a reply dated 29 June, which I received in full this morning and in a faxed form yesterday. I understand that a copy was sent to the Department of Health. I want to quote that letter because it is very important. The president states:
I … should like to make it clear at the outset that the GMC's Professional Conduct Committee"—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman and I have been trying to catch his eye, but his time has run out.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nigel Spearing, Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Sam Galbraith.

MEDICAL ACT 1983 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Nigel Spearing accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Medical Act 1983 to permit the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council to take action in specified circumstances in respect of conduct of a medical practitioner which they judge to be unacceptable professional conduct; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 229.]

Orders of the Day — European Parliamentary Elections Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I stress at the outset that the Bill has no effect whatever on the powers of the European Parliament. The Bill is a consequence of the agreement reached at the European Council at Edinburgh that additional seats should be allocated to some member states. That agreement was a consequence of the large increase in the population of Germany arising out of unification of that country following the collapse of communism. The United Kingdom received six additional seats under the agreement. The Bill provides for their distribution within Britain and for the work needed to change the boundaries of European constituencies to incorporate the extra seats.
Under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, which the Bill amends, representatives from Great Britain in the European Parliament fill single-member seats to which the candidate with a simple majority is elected. The Bill proposes no change in that system.
In the exceptional circumstances of Northern Ireland, as in local government elections, Members of the European Parliament are chosen by the single transferable vote system. Northern Ireland is a single constituency for that purpose. That system was introduced in the Province in 1977 to ensure fair representation for both communities, and we do not propose to change it.
We are prepared to participate in further Community discussions about electoral procedures for the European Parliament, but I must make it clear to the House that we see no case for departing from our traditional system. It is noteworthy that there is a movement in our direction in the Community, as people in other member states see the disadvantages of proportional representation. That hardly suggests that we should be moving in the opposite direction.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am grateful, as many of my hon. Friends will be, for the strong words that my right hon. and learned Friend has used about our excellent system of voting for membership of the European Parliament. It is obvious that next year we shall be having an election in this country on the basis of the first-past-the-post system. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, so far as he is concerned. the European election after that will also be fought on the first-past-the-post system?

Mr. Howard: I have answered my hon. Friend. I see absolutely no case for moving away from our first-past-the-post system. I am convinced that it is the best system and I am confident that, in time, our view will prevail in the Community.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have the impression that Opposition Members are sceptical when my right hon. and learned Friend speaks about people in other countries coming our way. Does he agree that there has been total chaos in Italy, but that Italy has now come our way?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to the extent that Italy is moving in our direction—not yet as far or as fast as I would like, but I live in hope. What we have seen are the first stages of a move in our direction. I am confident that in time we shall see more.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that the Community is shortly to extend itself from 12 to perhaps 16 seats, and given that the majority of countries use proportional representation, how does the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile that with article 138 of the treaty, which says that we should move to a uniform electoral system?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady will be aware that all decisions on what that uniform system should be must be reached by unanimity. During the period when the movement in our direction which I described is still taking place, we shall rely on our veto to encourage those other member states to move further and faster in our direction.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: To avoid wasting time, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman simply confirm that Italy has changed from one proportional system to another proportional system?

Mr. Howard: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), Italy is moving in our direction, away from a system of extreme proportionality to a system much closer to ours. I said that Italy had not moved as far or as fast as I would like, but I am an optimist.
The effect of clause 1 is that next year's European parliamentary elections will be contested with the following number of seats for each of the four territories of the United Kingdom: 71 seats in England, eight in Scotland, five in Wales and three in Northern Ireland. That represents an increase of five for England and one for Wales.
That distribution of the extra seats is, I believe, the fairest available, as the arithmetic clearly shows. I have put in the Vote Office—and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has copies available in the Chamber for hon. Members who wish to follow the matter—a note setting out both the current position and the effect of introducing the various options.
At present, the average electorate of a European Parliament seat in Wales is 1 per cent. greater than that in England. In Scotland, the average electorate is 10 per cent. smaller than that in England. So Wales is slightly disadvantaged compared with England and considerably disadvantaged compared with Scotland. England, too, is disadvantaged compared with Scotland. If all the new seats were allocated to England the average electorate for Wales would be 10 per cent. greater than that for England. In Scotland, the average would he 3 per cent. less than that in England. That option would therefore increase the disadvantage to Wales.
The most unsatisfactory change of all would be to distribute the seats on the basis of four to England, one to Scotland, and one to Wales—the solution suggested in the


Opposition's reasoned amendment. This would mean that Scotland's unfair advantage would increase from the present 10 per cent. to 16 per cent., while the average for Wales would go from 1 per cent. more than England to 15 per cent. less, giving Wales an unfair advantage over England almost as big as that of Scotland.
By giving five seats to England and one to Wales, the most satisfactory result which does not disadvantage Wales is achieved. The average electorate in Wales would become 13 per cent. less than England's, but Scotland's would still be 4 per cent. less than England's, so both Wales and Scotland would still be advantaged over England, but to a much lesser extent than the four-one-one option favoured by the Opposition. The strength of the Union depends on all its parts being treated fairly. Once again, it is only the Conservative party that is prepared to stand up for a fair deal for England.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed to take land mass into account? Does he appreciate that the existing Highlands and Islands constituency is larger than some countries in the Community? Is he not prepared to take into account the area that has to be covered by each MEP? Does he accept that if the Government's recommendation is adopted, Scotland's representation will be lower in Europe than in the House of Commons?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman anticipates precisely the point to which I was about to come.
The largest of the Scottish constituencies, in geographic terms—the Highlands and Islands—is already the lowest in terms of population. It would be very unlikely to be altered were there to be an extra Scottish seat. It is far more likely that there would be an extra seat in the central belt of Scotland, where there could be no conceivable argument of geographical fairness or of fairness based on the size of the electorate or any other criterion.

Mrs. Ewing: My House of Commons constituency lies within the Highlands and Islands European constituency, which is represented by my mother-in-law, Madame Ecosse. If the Secretary of State looks at the geography of the Highlands and Islands, he will see that the constituency's most southerly point is nearer to London than to its most northerly point. Thus, the servicing of the constituency involves a great deal of complication. Just getting to the islands is a problem. Indeed, the constituency has more islands than any other part of the European Community, and its land mass is bigger than that of Belgium. Does the Secretary of State not agree that it is desirable to take account of geography as well as of arithmetic?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady cannot have heard the answer that I gave a moment ago. In practice, what she wants would not make any difference. I should be delighted to take any possible steps to enable her to see more of her mother-in-law. Indeed, I can think of a number of ways in which the electorate could assist in that process—I am thinking not just of European parliamentary elections but also of United Kingdom parliamentary elections, in the next of which I hope that the electorate will take the necessary steps. However, this is not the best means of achieving that desirable objective.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Scotland is not the only part of the kingdom with very large constituencies. The constituency that I had the honour of representing years ago—then Cumbria, now Cumbria and North Lancashire—includes all of Cumbria and three very large House of Commons constituencies in north Lancashire, and is bigger than the rest of the north-west put together. I certainly had some travelling to do, but I loved it.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is completely right. She makes an entirely apposite point.

Mr. William Cash: My right hon. and learned Friend referred very skilfully to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, but that Act was amended in 1981 and 1986. Has he not noticed the specific reference to the role of the Boundary Commission? It would not be right to say that the European constituency boundaries create more difficulty for the Boundary Commission than do the House of Commons constituencies, which have to take account of geography, shape, accessibility and so on. With regard to the European parliamentary boundaries laid down in the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, it is provided that if at least 500 electors make any representation—not by reference to criteria laid down in respect of Westminster—there must be a local inquiry. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this Bill represents a step well away from arrangements enacted as recently as 1986?

Mr. Howard: I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me, as I am dealing at the moment with the distribution or seats in Great Britain. Of course there is an important point with regard to the role of the Boundary Commission and I shall come to that in due course.

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend is being very brave in at last securing an element of fairness for England in the European Parliament. Will he go one step further and reduce Scotland's representation in the House of Commons so that England can have fairness here?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate that this is not an appropriate legislative vehicle for any endeavour of that kind.
In the figures that I have given, I have made no mention of Northern Ireland as it is proportionately the best represented of the territories of the United Kingdom, with three Members of the European Parliament for a population of only 1,153,204. That level of representation is for good reasons. First, any fewer seats would result in Northern Ireland's being the least well represented of the home countries. Secondly, the three seats allow the communities to be represented roughly in proportion to their numbers.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The Secretary of State has been talking about the six extra seats—whether they be Scottish, Irish, Welsh or English. We are told that the extra cost will be £250,000. My understanding is that that sum would provide only one and three quarters MEPs. Is this bargain-basement Europeanism? How have the Government done their arithmetic?

Mr. Howard: I am always keen to help my hon. Friend in his search for value for money. The sum to which he referred is the cost of reorganising the constituencies to enable us to implement the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: On the question of cost, I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend what I ought to say to those of my constituents who believe tht there are already too many MEPs, do not know what those MEPs do, and who say—perhaps unfairly—that they never see or hear of them. [Interruption.] I am expressing a view that has been put to me not infrequently by constituents. Are we justified in increasing the number of MEPs, who have very limited power and virtually no influence? Is there any point in having more of them before they have a real job to do?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is inviting me to dip a toe into some very troubled waters. I am a little reluctant to accept his invitation, although I realise that it was extended with the best of motives. I am sure that even my hon. Friend acknowledges that it is sensible for us to take advantage of increased representation for the United Kingdom when there is to be increased representation for other countries. No doubt we shall all do our utmost to make sure that the people who represent the United Kingdom will do so sensibly.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think it possible that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) misheard slightly and that most of the criticisms to which he referred were about Members of this House?

Mr. Howard: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I think that the sense of hearing of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) was probably accurate on this occasion.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, even after the proposed redistribution, the proposals will still result in a greater number of electors per seat in England than in Scotland? Is that not one of the reasons why it is appropriate for the seats to be awarded principally to England?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is quite right. Even after the distribution of seats proposed in the Bill, England will still be at a disadvantage compared with Scotland and Wales, but it will be a much smaller disadvantge than that which would flow from the alternative arrangement suggested by the Opposition parties. That is why I said that only the Conservative party is prepared to fight for a fair deal for England.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Howard: This is the last time that I shall give way before dealing with clause 2.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps I can make the Secretary of State more comfortable by saying that, however unsatisfactory the position in the Brighton area, we in east Scotland get excellent value from Mr. David Martin and Mr. Alex Falconer.

Mr. Howard: I note the hon. Gentleman's view on that matter.
Clause 2 and the schedule to the Bill set out the machinery proposed for making recommendations for the constituencies for the 1994 European parliamentary elections.
I now come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). The recommendations

will be made by two special ad hoc European parliamentary constituencies committees, one each for England and Wales, appointed by the Home Secretary. It is a one-off task and does not form part of the duties assigned to the parliamentary Boundary Commission by the 1978 Act or, indeed, by the 1986 Act. That is solely because time does not permit that course to be followed.
There is wide agreement that the process should be completed by the end of November. The Boundary Commission's procedures would not enable that date to be met, but it is my intention that, subject to those time constraints, the procedures that we adopt should follow as closely as possible the procedures which the Boundary Commission would adopt.
The membership of the committees will be selected in consultation with Opposition parties, and I shall seek agreement with them on this matter in exactly the same way that I would if I were appointing Boundary Commissioners. I am delighted to say that, subject only to confirmation of the necessary timetable, I have the agreement of one existing Boundary Commissioner to sit on the committee for England and that of one existing Boundary Commissioner to sit on the committee for Wales. I certainly intend to appoint more Boundary Commissioners if it proves possible.

Mr. Tony Blair: Let us be quite clear about this. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that, with regard to the appointments to and the independence of the committees, the process of consultation and agreement with other parties will be exactly the same as with the Boundary Commission?

Mr. Howard: Yes.
The committees will adopt procedures which—again, subject to time constraints—will follow the consultation arrangements which the Boundary Commission would have followed. Due to the time constraints, it will not be possible to hold public inquiries, but I am confident that full opportunity will be made available to all who wish their views to be taken into account.
It is clearly important that the shape of the constituencies is settled as quickly as possible, taking account of the need for proper public consultation, so that the political parties can select candidates and prepare for the June 1994 elections in good time. I shall therefore ask the members of the committees to start work immediately on their appointment and before Royal Assent.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not recognise that an important point of principle is involved? Why is it right for us in the European context to abandon the traditional methods and safeguards that we observe when choosing or altering British parliamentary boundaries? Does that not tend to reinforce the fears of those of us who believe that every step down the European road tends to weaken this country's traditional democratic safeguards?

Mr. Howard: I do not think that my hon. Friend's fears are justified by anything in the Bill. He talked about our traditions, but this will not be the first time there have been no public inquiries on the designation of constituencies for European parliamentary elections. When the first direct European Parliament elections took place in 1979, the process for drawing up the constituencies did not make


provision for public inquiries. So there is a precedent-this is not a novel departure in the context of the European Parliament.

Sir Teddy Taylor: We were promised that it would never happen again.

Mr. Howard: I do not conceal from my hon. Friend the fact that I would have preferred to appoint the Boundary Commissioners in the usual way and to hold public inquiries, but there is no time. We have checked carefully how long that procedure would take, and I am satisfied that time does not permit us to adopt it. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, that I proposed the alternative procedure and, as I have tried to say, I am attempting to mirror to the greatest possible extent within the time contraints the procedures which would be followed were the Boundary Commissions to be set up.

Sir Peter Tapsell: If any Home Secretary of any political party were to say that the British parliamentary constituency boundaries were to be changed but that the traditional method of doing that was to be abandoned due to pressures of time, there would be an outcry from all parties and throughout the country, so why should the argument be acceptable in the European context, especially bearing in mind that in 1978 we were given an absolute assurance that such a procedure would never be followed again?

Mr. Howard: I have made as clear as I can the reasons why we propose to follow this course on this occasion. I do not think that I can add anything to what I have said.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Howard: I am happy to give way, but I have already given the reasons for pursuing this course and I shall only be able to repeat them in answer to further interventions.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, although the Boundary Commissions' reports for Europe were published in July 1983, because of the public inquiry system the boundaries were not finalised until March 1984? Would such a delay not make it almost impossible for candidates who are seeking to fight constituencies of 500,000 people, which is very much more difficult than fighting a Westminster constituency?

Mr. Howard: I think that my hon. Friend is right. There was widespread agreement that we needed to have the constituencies finalised in good time before the election, for reasons that we all readily understand. As I have said, it was for that reason that I have included this procedure in the Bill.

Mr. Christopher Gill: If we cannot do what is necessary through the Boundary Commission because of the lack of time, how do we explain to our constituents, who will surely want to know, that we are appointing a committee rather than referring the issue to the Boundary Commission when we have lost more than six months since it was originally agreed that the number of seats would have to be increased?

Mr. Howard: I have a suspicion that the issue will not be uppermost in the minds of our constituents, but when it is raised we shall have to tell them—and there are few people better placed to do so than my hon. Friend—that we have had an especially heavy legislative timetable this Session and that we have been occupied with other matters, which has made it very difficult for us to deal with this issue until today. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to put that case persuasively to his constituents.

Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 related to a tin-pot Assembly by no means the same as that referred to in the proposals contained in the Maastricht treaty concerning European political parties, the process of integration and all that goes with that? I therefore argue—and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree—that the requirements for greater control are necessary by virtue of the fact that the Maastricht treaty enhances the powers of the European Parliament. It is therefore essential that the criteria followed are no less significant than those which apply to the Boundary Commission. By bypassing the insertions in the 1986 Act, my right hon. and learned Friend is depriving 500 or more electors, notwithstanding the local inquiry, from having an opportunity to have their say on a far more important matter than that which applied in 1978.

Mr. Howard: With great respect to my hon. Friend, he has got it wrong. The criteria that will be used to draw up the new constituencies will be identical to those that the Boundary Commissioners would follow. The procedures, however, will be different.

Sir Peter Tapsell: indicated assent.

Mr. Howard: I am glad to have the assent of my hon. Friend.
The 500 people to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred will have full opportunity to make representations, which will be taken fully into account. The difference is that there will be no opportunity for a public inquiry. I wish that that were not so, but the time constraints make it impossible for such inquiries to be delivered.

Mr. Bowden: Arising out of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), and accepting that there are considerable time pressures facing the Boundary Commissioners at present, would my right hon. and learned Friend be prepared to consider that between the next two European elections the ordinary processes by which we decide our parliamentary boundaries should apply? That would enable local difficulties or complaints about relatively minor matters to be negotiated through public inquiries. The boundaries would be honed rather than decided roughly through the committee, as proposed.

Mr. Howard: I very much hope so. I do not find it easy to look so far ahead in such detail, but I hope that we shall be able to do what my hon. Friend regards as important.

Mr. Dalyell: May I intrude on this matter?

Mr. Howard: By all means.

Mr. Dalyell: Although I concede to the Home Secretary that this is not what Bernard Ingham, of happy memory, would call the
talk of Two Feathers in Hebden Bridge",


none the less, on what grounds will the criteria deciding the constituencies be different from the normal Boundary Commission criteria which decide parliamentary boundaries?

Mr. Howard: The criteria will be those with which we are familiar and will include those which instruct the Boundary Commissioners or the members of the ad hoc committee to look at the numbers in and geographical configuration of a constituency. There will be no difference between the criteria employed by the committees and those employed by the Boundary Commissions. It is the procedures which are different and I want to make the differences as few and as small as possible. The criteria will, however, be identical.

Mr. Blair: I do not believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has grasped the force of the point about a public inquiry. He has refused such a possibility because of the problem with the timetable, but many people feel that that time constraint is due to the delay in bringing the Bill forward. If there were a way in which a public inquiry could be held and its recommendations published within five or six weeks, that would surely be a sufficient amount of time.

Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman overlooks the practicalities of these matters. I have sought the most careful advice that I can obtain. I am clear that the timetable that is agreed as desirable simply cannot be met if we introduce public inquiries into the process. That is the only reason why I have been driven to the conclusion that I have explained to the House.

Mr. Rooker: If my memory serves me correct, the right hon. and learned Gentleman entered the House in 1983. He may not therefore recall that it was just about two months—a matter of weeks—prior to the 1983 general election that the House approved the reorganisation of constituency boundaries. I did not know the constituency boundaries on which I would fight the 1983 election until the House had approved the order, just two months before that election. If that could be done for the House, surely it could be done for Euro-elections to be held in June next year.
At the heart of the Bill is the integrity of our democratic procedures, which govern how boundaries are drawn. The Prime Minister gave his own word—I hope to deploy the record of that later—that the Bill would maintain the integrity of our democratic procedures. They will not be maintained by stamping out the possibility of a public inquiry, however tight the time scale may be.

Mr. Howard: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The integrity of the process is guaranteed by the integrity of those who carry out the task. They will be independent and they will be selected in consultation—and, I hope, agreement—with the Opposition parties. I hope that many of those individuals will be Boundary Commissioners.
As to what happened before 1983, the hon. Gentleman tempts me to remind him that, whatever the time at which the order providing for the constituencies was laid before the House, everyone knew what those constituencies would be because they had been agreed by the Boundary Commission in good time for the 1979 election. It was only on the basis of a disgraceful example of gerrymandering by the Labour party that those changes were not introduced

in time for that election. I do not believe that it does much credit to the hon. Gentleman or to his party to remind the House about what happened.

Mr. Rooker: That is not true.

Mr. Howard: Oh yes it is—that is exactly what happened. The Boundary Commission made recommendations in good time for the 1979 election, but the Labour party was terrified of having to fight the election on those boundaries, so it indulged in a shabby piece of procedural gerrymandering which made it impossible for the election to be fought on those boundaries. That is why we had to wait until 1983.

Mr. John Maxton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has got the wrong date.

Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before I sought re-election to the House in 1983, I attended a public inquiry in Birmingahm of the Boundary Commission relating to changes made in 1981–82. How could that meeting relate to boundaries decided on before 1979?

Mr. Maxton: The Home Secretary has got the wrong date.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. There seems to be a slight difference of opinion on dates. Perhaps hon. Members on both sides should do further research so that agreement can be reached.

Mr. Maxton: It is the Government side that has got it wrong.

Mr. Howard: I can quite understand the sensitivities of the Opposition about the gerrymandering exercise which took place immediately before the 1979 election.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Perhaps we can leave gerrymandering and get back to the criteria. The committees will apply the same criteria as the Boundary Commission. Does that mean that the new Euro constituencies in England and Wales will not take in parts of Westminster constituencies, but entire Westminster constituencies?

Mr. Howard: Indeed it does. I will discuss the specific criteria in a moment, but I can answer the right hon. Gentleman's question in the affirmative.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the usual conventions will he followed and that those who have attended the Second Reading and shown their interest by making interventions and speeches will in due course be invited to form the Standing Committee?

Mr. Howard: As my hon. Friend will know, those matters are not for me. I understand that the Committee stage of the Bill is likely to be taken on the Floor of the House, so there will be ample opportunity for my hon. Friend to make his points.

Mrs. Currie: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the opinion on his supportive Back Bench is that the event to which he referred, when Mr. Callaghan gerrymandered the boundaries in the belief that it would help the Labour party in the 1970 election, did not take


place in 1979 but in 1969? Of course, it did not help. Before my right hon. and learned Friend replies, he should have a look at the Box.

Mr. Howard: It is not always easy to distinguish between one piece of Labour party gerrymandering and another. It comes naturally to the Labour party. Undoubtedly, if Labour Members were ever to sit on the Government side of the House they would be up to the same tricks again.
I hope that the members of the committees to whom I have referred will publish their draft reports in mid-August. I then envisage about four to six weeks of public consultation and a further month or so of subsequent deliberation before final reports are published in November. Approval by Orders in Council would then follow.
The criteria that the committees must follow in considering the distribution of seats will be the same as those laid down in part II of schedule 2 to the 1978 Act. They specify that each European parliamentary constituency must consist of at least two parliamentary constituencies, that no parliamentary constituency can be included partly in one European parliamentary constituency and partly in another, and that the electorate of each constituency must be as close as possible to the electoral quota for that part of Great Britain, having regard to special geographical considerations where appropriate.
This Bill is not concerned with the powers of the European Parliament, but the extra seats for the United Kingdom will give this country a greater voice in the important jobs of scrutinising the Community budget, exposing fraud and calling European Commissioners to account. The Bill sets out the right way of allocating our extra seats to different parts of the United Kingdom. It deserves wide support, and I hope that it will receive it. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move, to leave out from "That to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill which has been delayed without justification; which does not provide for the Boundary Commission to establish new boundaries with the power to hold public inquiries and proper consultation; and which does not provide for an additional seat for Scotland.
The first point that should be made about the Bill is that it is long overdue. Indeed, we have encountered some of the problems that the Home Secretary described precisely because of the delay in bringing the Bill to the House. On 14 December, the Prime Minister announced that the review would take place following the Edinburgh summit.
At the summit, it was agreed that, as a result of unification, the German allocation of seats would increase to provide for proper representation for east Germany. Eighteen seats were agreed for Germany and six apiece for France, Italy and the United Kingdom. That means that the latter three countries, with populations of about 56 million or 57 million, will return 87 European Members of Parliament, and Germany, with a population of about 80 million, will return 99.
I immediately wrote to the Home Secretary on 14 December asking for clarification of the procedures,

because we supported the principle of six extra seats but wanted to be sure that the proper procedures would be followed. It took almost six weeks for a reply to come through, on 27 January 1993. It is right to say—of course, this was before the Home Secretary took office—that there were fairly constant reminders and requests to expedite matters.
There has been an enormous delay in bringing the Bill forward. That delay is relevant for reasons that I shall give in a moment. I do not simply raise it to make a point about the delay—it is relevant to the two principal points that we are discussing with regard to the Boundary Commission and the issue of public inquiries.
There are three main aspects of the Bill that we should consider: first, it will not be the Boundary Commission but a sub-committee appointed by the Home Secretary that will draw up the new boundaries; secondly, there will not be the full process of public inquiry that is normally associated with boundary changes; and, thirdly, there is the issue of distribution of the seats, which the Home Secretary has done on the basis of five for England, one for Wales and none for Scotland.
We believe that the Bill is justified if it provides for six extra seats, but it must be done on a proper basis. The reason for having the Boundary Commission draw up the boundaries is obvious-it is independent, it is respected and it has the expertise. It is also what the Prime Minister promised would happen when he announced the extra seats for Britain. He said:
The provision of six extra MEPs will mean that fresh boundaries are set across England, Scotland and Wales, which will be a matter for the Boundary Commission. not the Government."—[Official Report, 14 December 1992; Vol. 216, c. 35.]
Today, the Government say that the Boundary Commission cannot perform the task, first, because the commission is too busy with the Westminster constituencies. However, I now understand that the reason is a technical one—the Boundary Commission, as a statutory body, would need specific parliamentary power to draw up the new boundaries. Because of the time problem as a result of the delay, work on the new boundaries would have to begin immediately. I understand that the Boundary Commission would be unable to do that work on an informal basis and, apparently, such considerations do not apply to any new and different committee that the Home Secretary appoints.
Let us be clear about this. If it is merely a technical matter, that is one thing. But if there are any circumstances in which the independence or integrity of the process is called into question, that would be another matter. At the minimum, we would demand that, so far as the guarantee of independence is concerned, this must be the Boundary Commission in all but name if there is a genuine technical objection to the Boundary Commission pursuing it; where possible, Boundary Commissioners should serve; it should be effectively the same secretariat that services it and there should be the proper and normal process of consultation over any additional members so that we can be sure that this is the product of a cross-party agreement and there is no question of people who are susceptible to the Government or are supporters of them being appointed. That seems to be an entirely reasonable list of demands.
I now turn to the question of the timetable. The big omission is the omission of any proper public inquiry. submit that the existence of the process of a public inquiry


is an important part—not merely a usual part—of the process of consultation when a boundary redistribution takes place. I do not believe that the House would for one moment contemplate allowing a redistribution of Westminster boundaries without a proper public inquiry.
Therefore, it seems to be wrong in principle to say that we should have such a redistribution of European constituency boundaries without some public inquiry element. The process allows scrutiny and cross-examination and matters often emerge during public inquiries. Most people who have been through the process would recognise that it is a valuable and, indeed, integral part of the process of scrutiny and consultation.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, contrary to what the Home Secretary appears to believe, the trigger for a public inquiry, which is the 500 or more electors or an interested authority, under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, as amended by the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, has been left out of the procedure, or am I wrong? Does he have a view on that?

Mr. Blair: I understand that the effect of the Bill is that there will not be a public inquiry, whether or not there are 500 or more electors. Obviously, we wish to see that element of public inquiry inserted in the Bill. What I find unsatisfactory about what the Home Secretary said is that we have an assertion that there is insufficient time available. However, we must examine that assertion before we simply accept it at face value.

Mr. Marlow: If the hon. Gentleman's amendment is successful as a result of a decision of hon. Members, abstentions or whatever, and if the Bill is voted down—even if the amendment were successful—would we have elections on the same basis as at present? What process would be used?

Mr. Blair: The Government would have to introduce a Bill in consequence of the reasoned amendment. I hope that they would do that. That would be their clear conventional obligation in the House.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Some people, especially people outside the House, might think that the expression "public inquiry" is rather meaningless. But that is far from the case. The Boundary Commissioners have just been examining my parliamentary seat. The examination produced an initial recommendation which, after the public inquiry, was substantially changed because there was a local outcry in Lincolnshire. The commissioners have accepted the changes to their original recommendation suggested by the public. That would not be possible under the proposed procedures, and it is wrong.

Mr. Blair: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has just reminded me that about 70 per cent. of boundary changes are altered after the public inquiry. Perhaps my mind is unduly concentrated on the matter because my constituency will go through the process of a public inquiry next Monday. The public inquiry is important because Members of Parliament, parties and people who have objections often attend, so there is necessarily much more detailed consideration, as anyone who has seen the process at work will understand.

Mr. Howard: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on this issue. The procedures will allow for consultation to take place and representations to be made after the members of the committee have published their provisional recommendations. There will certainly be opportunity for changes to be made to those provisional recommendations in the light of any representations that are made. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) is right to say that there will not be a public inquiry. However, all the people who would have attended the public inquiry and wanted to make their views known will be able to make representations. The members of the committee will be perfectly able to take account of those representations and change their provisional recommendations in the light of them.

Mr. Blair: The Home Secretary is less than persuasive. Of course it is true that, according to his timetable, people will be able to make written representations. But the point that is being made to him is that in the process of an oral inquiry people can attend and the commissioners can be subject to proper scrutiny and cross-examination. I shall give evidence at the inquiry next week in my constituency.
I suspect that what often happens—indeed, I am certain that it frequently happens—is that the proposals to change the Boundary Commission recommendations are driven by the interests of political parties. That is natural and entirely sensible from the standpoint of the political parties. In a process of public inquiry, such recommendations can be tested and the commissioners can decide whether they are merely a desire to sort out the boundaries in a way most convenient to a political party or whether there is a genuine objection about the way in which constituencies are represented.
Therefore, I believe that the Home Secretary crucially underestimates the importance of holding an inquiry in public. We are on particularly strong ground when the reason for the truncation of the timetable is delay by the Government.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman's figure of 70 per cent. may apply to reorganisation of Westminster parliamentary constituencies, in which a ward may be moved from one constituency to another, but in a reorganisation of European parliamentary constituencies whole Westminster constituencies may be moved. The number of changes that occurred as a result of the public inquiries after the 1983 review was nowhere near 70 per cent. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that under the procedures adopted in 1978 significant changes were made through the representation system? Does he agree that the system adopted in 1978 by the Labour Government was precisely the same system as that which is being adopted this evening?

Mr. Blair: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is right about the current boundary changes, but, in any event, it was made clear after the 1983 review that the process would have proper public inquiries built into it from then on.
The Prime Minister said in the House back in December that the normal political processes would apply through the Boundary Commission. Paragraph 7 of the schedule—perhaps the Home Secretary or whoever replies to the debate could comment on this—says that it is for the Secretary of State to


lay the report before Parliament together with the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report.
It is important to know exactly who will be responsible for making those modifications.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). Moving bits of constituencies is a vastly different kettle of fish. In the current boundary changes, I have been given some remarkable fragments which bear no relation whatever to each other. It is a different matter when one moves whole constituencies. It is a much simpler process.

Mr. Blair: I do not understand why that should be a point against holding public inquiries here, because, if anything, it means that the process can be expedited in a sensible way. On any basis, there will be a relatively limited number of inquiries. In a moment I shall show how public inquiries could be built into the timetable. As I understand the Home Secretary's argument, he does not argue that there is any reason of principle for not having public inquiries. He says that he would prefer to have public inquiries, but that the time constraints simply do not allow him to do so. That should not pass without proper investigation.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people can attend a public inquiry and have a fair crack of the whip and that, even if they do not achieve what they hoped, they recognise that justice has been seen to be done? There is a vast difference between that procedure and some shenanigans of written submissions to a faceless committee which writes back a form letter saying, "Thank you very much, Guy, but push off."

Mr. Blair: Whether that point will console me if the Boundary Commission plays around with my constituency next week, I do not know. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to have a public inquiry. Otherwise, the representations are simply written and the commission will not consider any oral representations. There is no opportunity for cross-examination of key witnesses, as there is in normal inquiries. The reason why oral inquiries are held on any matter is precisely that the scrutiny is greater and more profound than when written representations are handled behind closed doors.

Mrs. Currie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being patient. Has he realised that we are likely to have new boundaries for every European election for some years as a result of either boundary changes to the Westminster constituencies, which are likely to need to be reflected in the European boundaries, or the enlargement of Europe, which is the cause of today's Bill? If we are likely to have changes every five years, is it not about time that we developed some agreed system that would be a great deal speedier and cleaner than the attractive but leisurely system that we have for Westminster constituencies, which takes rather more than the 10 years that it is supposed to take?

Mr. Blair: It is precisely such interventions which will worry many people in the House. The hon. Lady is saying

that this is not an exceptional case and that the new procedures should become the norm. Yet the Home Secretary justified his position by saying that the new procedures were exceptional. Many people are worried that if the issue is conceded once, it will be accepted as something which should be conceded for a period of time.
I return to the point that in the end the debate must be a matter of analysis of the timetable. If, as I hope to show in a moment, proper time can be found for public inquiries without undue delay, public inquiries should be held.

Mr. Rooker: The point about paragraphs 7 and 8 of the schedule is crucial. Under the present arrangement, the Boundary Commission, not Ministers, will, after a draft proposal and a public inquiry, decide whether to issue an amended draft proposal. In this case, it is clear that the Minister, not the committee, will agree to issue the amended proposal. Opportunites sometimes arise for even a second public inquiry. That occurred on a previous occasion in the Finchley area, if I remember correctly. That point is crucial. It has to be transparently seen that the system has integrity from start to finish. The system will be damaged if there is no opportunity for a face-to-face verbal inquiry in which witnesses can be challenged and the commission that made the original proposal can decide whether, on the force of the arguments, to issue another proposal.

Mr. Blair: I understood that drawing up the boundaries would not involve any ministerial decision. Perhaps the Home Secretary could confirm that.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) combined two points in his intervention. He made a point about face-to-face contact, which is obviously what one gets at a public inquiry. He also said that, as a result of the procedures that we propose, the original committee would not decide whether the representations that were submitted were such as to cause the original recommendations to be altered. On that, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Members of the committee, who will make their recommendations and receive representations in exactly the same way as the Boundary Commissioners, would decide, without a public inquiry, whether, in the light of the representations, they wish to change their original recommendations. The committee will have the power to do so. In that respect, the procedures that we expect to follow will be identical to those which the Boundary Commission would follow.

Mr. Blair: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr will make that point again during the debate. Is the Home Secretary giving an assurance that there will be no ministerial involvement in assessing whether the provisional recommendations of the Boundary Commission are altered or modified?

Mr. Howard: The procedures would be identical to those that would otherwise be followed. The procedures always provide that when either the Boundary Commissioners or the members of the committee make their final proposals, the Home Secretary can make orders in accordance with those proposals or modify them. That is always the case. There is no difference between what we propose in the Bill and what normally takes place.
The procedures will be as follows: the members of the committee will publish their provisional recommendations; they will receive representations on those


recommendations and decide whether to alter their original view in the light of the representations that would be received; they will then submit their final recommendations to the Home Secretary, who will then make Orders in Council. The Home Secretary has a discretion to modify final recommendations. I cannot remember when that discretion was last exercised.

Mr. Graham Allen: It never has been.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman says that the discretion has never been exercised. He may well be right about that. I have no reason to suppose that that practice would be any different on an occasion such as we are debating. The form and the language used for that stage of the process would be identical. I repeat what I have said time after time. Although there would not be room for a public inquiry in the process, and subject only to that omission, the procedures will mirror as closely as possible those that apply when the Boundary Commission is involved.

Mr. Blair: I accept the point that the Home Secretary makes. But the existence of the power to which he has referred adds weight to the need for a public inquiry. There is even greater pressure on the Minister not to exercise that power, because the full process of consultation will not have been completed.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member was probably still at school at the time and may not recall the occasion when a Labour Home Secretary had the audacity to lead his troops into the Lobby against his own orders.

Mr. Blair: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I do not remember that occasion.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I shall try to seek some compromise in this difficult situation. Would not it be in accordance with the spirit of this excellent Bill if we were simply to go home now, cancel the debate and send a written representation to the Home Secretary about what we think about the Bill? He could carefully consider those representations and then—perhaps tomorrow—let us know his conclusion. Is not the issue of a public inquiry that there is a massive difference between having a debate about something and simply sending letters that are carefully considered? Is not the matter one of principle rather than a minor bureaucratic point as some people think?

Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman has made his point well. The Opposition often feel that, even after a full debate, our points are not always taken on board fully.
The timetable, I would submit, would allow for the public inquiry process. The consultation of the committee membership could be achieved, one would think, within days of the Bill receiving Second Reading. The committee could determine provisional recommendations certainly within a couple of weeks. Those provisional recommendations could be published, let us say, a couple of weeks later. There could be a final dale for representations. Notice of the public inquiry could be given—it could be four weeks on such a timetable. There could be then a week of public inquiries. We understand that public inquiries would be necessarily limited to a maximum of about 10 inquiries.

There would be another month before final recommendations were determined, and another couple of weeks before publication.
That process from giving notice of the public inquiry to the publication of the final recommendations would take about 10 weeks. Looking as reasonably as one can at the matter, it does not seem to be impossible to do that. If the Home Secretary had been able to give a clearer illustration of why that was genuinely not feasible, he would have found a greater echo in some of the comments that he made in the House. If the process were to be put back to mid-December, which is not impossible, that could be done within the proper time scale and would allow for the public inquiry to take place.
I understand elements such as the transcripts and commissioners' consideration and other matters. I return to the powerful point that the Government, if anyone, are responsible for the delay. They have dragged their heels. [Interruption.] It does not lie in the mouths of Conservative Members to blame their own side.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We do.

Mr. Blair: Well, the hon. Lady may do so, but she must sort that out with the Government.
It cannot be right that the delay is used as a reason for not having a proper timetable for public inquiries. I have shown, or at least raised a prima facie case, that even with the constraints of time there is room for a public inquiry. We believe that it is important that the fairness of the procedure should not be a casualty of the timetable in the Bill.
There are three effective reasons why there should be an additional seat for Scotland. First, there are the special geographical considerations. If we leave out the seat for the Highlands and Islands, on the current basis Scotland does not have a much lower average electorate than England. The effect of giving England four extra seats instead of five reduces the average by only 7,000 voters per seat. The effect of giving Scotland an extra seat would be to reduce the average electorate by 55,000. If the calculation were purely numerical, the outcome would have been six, nothing, nothing—six seats for England and none for Wales or Scotland. A seat has been given to Wales and we support that.
If there is one for Wales, there should also be one for Scotland. That would leave Wales and Scotland similarly balanced. I am not suggesting that there is not a case for six seats to England, none to Wales and none to Scotland or even five, one, none, but there is a strong case for the position that we are advocating. Indeed, if the Secretary of State looks at his own table, he will see the strength of that case made out, because Wales and Scotland are treated differently.
We ask support for the notion that there should be an equitable distribution of the seats and a proper way of determining the redrawing of European seat boundaries. They are important matters when new boundaries are drawn up and new seats given. The procedure must be sensible and fair. It must erase any appearance of substituting some ad hoc committee run by the Government for a proper independent body. The Secretary of State has moved towards meeting the objections to independence and I accept that. However, I am not satisfied, and I do not think that my hon. Friends


are either, about the issue of the public inquiry. For that reason and the other reasons that we have given, we ask for support for our reasoned amendment.

Sir Roger Moate: It is evident from the speeches and interventions that there is equal concern on both sides of the House for the principle of regular, fair and independent boundary reorganisation. That is a fundmental part of our democracy.
It is significant that there is not the same concern for these European proposals. One must ask why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should espouse so fundamentally and clearly the principle of independent, regular boundary reviews—so essential to our parliamentary democracy—yet feel it possible to recommend to the House a truncated and simplified system for European boundaries. Alas, he has left the Chamber, but the fundamental difference is that Westminster boundaries matter to this House and the public, whereas fundamentally, after many years of experience with this, the Strasbourg boundaries do not. If they did, there would be no proposition such as the one before us tonight.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): There is another, simpler explanation: we have a deadline of June next year.

Sir Roger Moate: A deadline would not be enough to undermine the principle that is so important to the House if we were talking about Westminster boundaries. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I agree with the Bill. It is a matter of supreme indifference to my constituents and to most constituents whether or not these new boundaries are determined by the full Boundary Commission and public inquiries or by a committee.
I would go further: I suspect that it is of supreme indifference to them whether or not they get the six extra seats. They will not cheer if the Bill is passed or weep tears if it is not. Had we declined to take these six seats, people would not be particularly upset. I admit that there are some with ambitions to represent their areas in Strasbourg or Brussels who would be disappointed, but for the vast majority that is not the case.
The important message that we can deliver to the world at large following today's deliberations on the Bill is that we should now examine the logic of what we are doing and the fundamental principles on which this and previous legislation are based. I can say that as one who is on the record as having voted in November 1977 against the original direct elections Bill. I believed it wrong then, and I believe it wrong now. If one believed it wrong then, it is logical to continue one's objections to the increased number of seats and the further entrenchment of the principle of direct elections.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), who has now left us, was a little unkind when he referred to the general public's perception of Members of the European Parliament. I am not saying that he was wrong, but it was unkind to draw attention to the fact that most members of the public do not know their

MEPs, are not aware of their role and have little contact with them. That is reflected at elections, when the percentage turnout is pathetically low. It is derisory.
That is not a criticism of MEPs. They are worthy, earnest, dedicated, conscientious men. My MEP is an honourable man, as are they all. Given their remit and their constitutional role, they cannot respond as we expect elected representatives to do. That is the point that we are entitled to examine when we consider this Bill today.
We now have an opportunity to examine the Bill in the light of developments in the Community and other developments, particularly one referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). She rightly pointed to the changes that will be forced on us by the enlargement of the Community.
The proposal to increase the number of seats has come to us because of the enlargement of the Community by the inclusion of eastern Germany. As enlargement progresses and the Community of 12 becomes ultimately, I hope, the Community of 20, what then? Every time we take in two or three new member states, are we to have a new Bill of this sort? If so, what are we going to do? Will we reduce the number of Members per nation so that we do not increase the size of the Parliament, or will we increase their number until we have an assembly of 1,000 members?
I would find it rather amusing to be a member of such a Parliament. I suspect that it would give the same sort of pleasure as was given to the inhabitants of the tower of Babel. In practical terms, however, it cannot work. Surely it is incumbent on us now, during these interesting proceedings, to say what we want, and to ask where the European Parliament is going and what it is about.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I agree with every word of my hon. Friend. Does he accept that. if we defeat the Bill tonight and throw it out, there will be no extra MEPs in any country, because, under the Edinburgh agreement, if one country rejects the legislation, there will be no extra MEPs? Could we not save a great deal of public expenditure and avoid all the problems that he has described by agreeing to chuck out the legislation?

Sir Roger Moate: That is a tempting thought, but I do not feel in a destructive mood.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Constructive.

Sir Roger Moate: We should be constructive, and we should examine the Bill. After all, we have a Committee stage, when some such proposal could be tabled.
Let us consider what we should do in future. I say to my hon. Friend and even to the most enthusiastic Europeans, if I may use that phrase, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), that we must consider what will work in future, because it is self-evident that the directly elected European Parliament is not working as we believe it should. It is not responsive and responsible to its electorate as a Parliament should be.
The situation will not improve; it will become increasingly difficult. Therefore—this is the serious message that we must examine today, because if we do not, we shall have to return to it time and again—in the light of the enlargement of the Community, we should return to the system that we had before the 1977–78 legislation, which was nomination by this House. If we had such a system—or, at least, the option of such a system—we


would not face this legislation. That is an important proposition, and soon the Community will come back to recognising the advantage of it.
If, indeed, we believe in a Europe of nation states and want the central institutions to be responsive to our national legislatures, think of the advantages of returning to the system that worked rather well before 1977—that hon. Members of this House should be nominated by their parties to serve in the European Parliament. They could work there in rotation or for a limited number of years.
The advantages are self-evident because, being Members of this House, they would be in touch with their electors and responsive to the real world instead of being in their ivory towers elsewhere, with electorates of some half a million. That system worked before, and I believe that it could work again.
In pursuing that logic, some nations may not want to follow that pattern, but others do. If we believe in subsidiarity, it should be left to each member state to determine how it selects those Members who are to represent this nation in that Assembly.
Instead of the Government simply diving into this Bill, how much better it would have been had we raised at Edinburgh and the recent negotiations the prospect of subsidiarity applying to the method of choosing Members to go to the European Assembly.

Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as there have been grave doubts about the word "subsidiarity", this is an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate exactly what it means, and to have it work in this case? This is a classic case in which subsidiarity might work, yet the Government have rejected it and are producing a new invented mechanism specifically for Europe.

Sir Roger Moate: This debate gives us that opportunity.
I repeat what I said at the beginning: it is a matter of supreme indifference to my electors how those boundaries are changed—whether by a boundary commission or a committee. That does not undermine the principle of independent boundary commissions for Parliament, where it matters for democracy, but I see no evidence to suggest that it affects real democracy in the full sense of the word, because my constituents are not influencing the democratic power of MEPs. The system does not allow for that., so it cannot be fundamentally important.
We should now say, let the Government have the system. Although it is not satisfactory, they are probably right to say that there is no alternative. But let us send a message loud and clear that this is the time to re-examine the basis of the directly elected European Parliament.

Mr. Cash: I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says but take issue with him on whether the powers of the European Parliament have been significantly increased under the Maastricht treaty. If this Bill is enacted, it will apply to the provisions of the Maastricht Bill, when enacted. Therefore, the powers of co-decision and all that go with them, which European parliamentarians will acquire, will be attributable to those Members who will sit in those new parliamentary constituencies.

Sir Roger Moate: I have heard my hon. Friend express that view about increased powers of the European Parliament, and undoubtedly there are some. I am an

optimist, and believe that those powers are neither extensive nor wide, and will not grow. It is our task to try to prevent them from growing.
I therefore maintain my position that it is of no great significance whether we have six more Members, because they are doing nothing effective or helpful to this country. Individually, they may be superb and they are delightful men and women, but collectively their constitutional role is muddled, and the system by which we send them to Europe is wrong.
In the meantime, it does not matter what happens to those six seats. Let Scotland have them all if that makes it happy. It will do England little harm. Alternatively, Wales could have half.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Or Gibraltar.

Sir Roger Moate: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. Gibraltar is a deserving cause for representation in the European Parliament. If Luxembourg can have such a large representation, Gibraltar must be equally entitled. Let us give Gibraltar all six seats. If that is not satisfactory and we are to conform in some way, let us give them to other worthy organisations such as Age Concern, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds or the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The matter is of no great constitutional importance.
Ultimately, we must deal with the matter, and we have had no answers yet on how the European Parliament is to mould itself to a Europe of 20 separate sovereign states. There are those who will not for one moment yield the principle of direct elections, because they see them as a symbol of a nation state, albeit a federal, centralised one. To them, it is almost a principle of religious importance, because that pretension to a unitary state requires direct elections.
If the converse is true, and we believe in a Europe of nation states and decentralisation, we should get away from direct elections and return to the system whereby this Westminster Parliament nominates Members to the European Assembly.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I had a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) and did not believe that I would hear such a frivolous speech. It horrifies me because if we want to take our membership of the European Community seriously, as I believe the majority in the House and the country do, to treat the matter so frivolously does no justice to the House of Commons. I am extremely disappointed in the hon. Gentleman.
There is a role for national Parliament. Because of changes in the Community, which will undoubtedly occur within the next few years as a result of increased membership, the nature of the European Parliament will change. To try to keep the numbers sensible, it may mean a reduction in the number of directly-elected Members for each existing member state, and there will probably be a role for a second chamber made up of members of national Parliaments. That would provide a check and a balance. Each stage of democracy should have checks and balances built into it. I see possibilities there, although I do not wish to pursue the matter in detail.
I do not accept that the principle of subsidiarity applies in this case. I agree that a case can be made for it but it has


no strength simply because, if the European Parliament is to be treated seriously, bring the Commission to heel and have some control over what happens within the Commission, it is important that that Parliament is elected on a common, uniform basis and in a way that is compatible within Parliament. If each member state could send Members there on a wholly different basis—some elected, some appointed and others in different forms—it would negate the strength of a possible powerful check on the Commission by a democratically-elected European Parliament. I therefore do not accept the argument that each member state should be able to choose how it sends members to the European Parliament.
We are debating an important issue. We should not say that the turnout in the elections does not matter. As democrats, we should encourage maximum turnout at every election as part of the democratic process. It is up to our constituents to choose whether to participate in the debates. We should not argue that they do not care about the election and that we need not bother them with public inquiries as they can send letters. We should not tell them that that body and that election do not matter and that therefore their votes have no value. That sends a terrible signal to our constituents about what we think of the worth of their participation in how their country is governed.
I say that in the widest sense because not all power now resides in this House. Over time some of our powers have gone to the greater good of the European Community. On the whole, our constituents benefit from that, so it does not behove us to say that the elections do not count and that therefore it does not matter about the mechanism for those elections. It is more crucial for this country than for the other countries of western Europe. I freely declare my view that the elections should be based on proportional representation, as should the elections to this House. But I shall not pursue that matter today.
This is the only country in Europe that elects Members of Parliament on a single constituency, first-past-the-post arrangement. That has a destabilising effect on the composition of the European Parliament because, as we know from the 1989 election, a small change in the way the electorate votes can make a huge difference to the party representation of Great Britain in the European Parliament. The other member states are rightly aggrieved by that because they all subscribe to a system of proportionality by which representation is reflected in proportion to the votes cast for parties.
Our system is not proportional and we make no attempt to make it so except in Northern Ireland. That alters the party groupings in the European Parliament, the time available for speaking and the composition of its committees, and that is wholly disproportionate to the wishes of voters throughout Europe. Other countries have every reason to be aggrieved by Britain's slow progress on our commitment to a better and fairer system.
The Labour party conducted a long review of electoral procedures and systems. I attended all 28 of the meetings which were chaired by Lord Plant of Highfield. At our final meeting there was only one vote against recommending our party to subscribe to proportional voting based on a regional list system for the European Parliament. That

view has been endorsed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and I am certain that it will be carried at our annual conference in the autumn.
By the end of the year and before the next Euro-elections Labour will be committed to a proportional system for those elections. I regret that the Government have not taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to bring our system up to date in line with article 138 and the proposals endorsed by a committee of the European Parliament in March. Those proposals would enable England, Scotland and Wales to retain single member constituencies up to a maximum of two thirds, the other third to involve a system of proportional top-up so that votes are matched to the representation of the political parties. Hon. Members think that people vote on an individual basis and that we have huge personal votes, but in European constituencies, with electorates of 500,000, people will vote on a party basis. The nature of our representation in the European Parliament should reflect that vote.

Mrs. Ewing: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on proportionality. Has he looked at the implications for Scotland, Wales and England separately, bearing in mind that Scotland and Wales each have four major political parties whereas England tends to have three? There should not be a cross-boundary transfer of votes: representation should reflect the votes cast in Scotland, Wales and England.

Mr. Rooker: I accept that without equivocation and, of course, that applies in some other member states. However, because they use proportional systems, the small parties in those states are not snuffed out. In the nations of Scotland and Wales the parties represent large proportions of the electorate. Political parties are in the process of competition and of maximising support for their ideals and principles. It is not our role to organise systems to snuff out other parties. A proportional system, however it is based, must reflect the nature of the nationalist vote and other votes in Scotland and Wales. The dilution of the English vote must not be used to snuff that out.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Under the hon. Gentleman's proposal, would there be a national list system or a list system for the different component parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rooker: I think I said that we propose a regional list system for the European Parliament. Regions can be drawn in different ways but clearly Northern Ireland would be designated as a region and in that context would not be attached to any part of the mainland because that would not form a cohesive whole that any hon. Member could recommend. Scotland and Wales would be separate regions: it would be difficult to propose otherwise. The regions of England would need to be examined.
That is Labour's general proposal but we have not dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's because the detail is a matter for negotiation between the parties in the House and interested bodies outside. It is not for one political party to say, "This is what will happen." The Secretary of State is effectively saying through the Bill what will happen and there will not be proper discussion.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Gentleman is well known for his pioneering work in his party and outside on these matters. Was not it a great tragedy that in


1977 the Labour Government cynically removed the regional list construction from the original draft Bill and went instead for giant constituencies? The latest disappointment also is that there will not be an additional member system for the six seats.

Mr. Rooker: I am not in favour of rewriting history. On a free vote the House had a choice between single member constituencies—the huge existing ones—and a regional list system. A schedule to the Bill that the hon. Gentleman mentions contained both systems. I voted for first-past-the-post, single member constituencies, but since then I have seen the disbenefits of that system in local, regional and national elections and I have changed my mind. There is nothing wrong in learning from one's experience: I thought that that was what life was all about. Such systems were proposed during the time of the Lib-Lab pact. The last Labour Government recommended that the House support the regional list system, but on a free vote the House chose not to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) spoke about Scotland. In his speech, the Home Secretary repeated words from a Home Office press release. The idea of fairness in elections is a new Home Office concept. On pure arithmetical fairness the proportions are 5:1:0—five to England, one to Wales and none to Scotland. To try to rule on the basis of arithmetical fairness, ignoring community interests, Britain's political geography and the nations that make up the United Kingdom, would not take account of the aspirations and opinions within the United Kingdom. Therefore, I could support an extra seat for Scotland.
I wish that the city of Birmingham had the same representation as the city of Glasgow, but as a result of agreements over time Scotland is over-represented because of its geographical position and the historical understandings that have served the nation well. I am prepared to live with that. We do not propose the imposition of a uniform system. The Government have an arithmetical case but political logic demands that Scotland should have an extra seat.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman stands on the issue of one man, one vote, but surely the essential issue is that individuals are voting and not land masses. Therefore, the arithmetic makes a difference. It is people, not space, and the natural formula to follow is based on arithmetic.

Mr. Rooker: If it were just a question of arithmetic, there would not be various shaped constituencies for this House. Massive deviations are accepted, even at a time of boundary redistribution, over and above the arithmetical figure. America follows the arithmetic almost to the last 0·5 per cent., which means joining together districts that have no affinity just to make the numbers right. That is the problem with first-past-the-post, single-member constituencies and we have to live with that. It is one reason why I no longer subscribe to that system.
This House and the European Parliament should reflect, on a party basis, the votes cast in the ballot box, and that can be achieved by using one of a number of PR systems, whether single-member based with a regional top-up, a list or multi-member single transferable vote, as in Northern Ireland. That is the only way to get around the arithmetical difficulty of every constituency not being the same size.
I want to raise the issue of delay in bringing this matter before the House. In some ways this debate, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has forcefully argued against the snuffing out of public participation in the way that the boundaries are drawn, is happening only because of that delay. One would think that no one knew that there would be a delay. We seem to be overlooking the fact that from July to December last year Britain held the European presidency. When the Prime Minister went to the Edinburgh summit, it did not come as a surprise to him that there would be extra seats.
I corresponded with the Prime Minister on that issue between October and March. I want to share some of that correspondence with the House. On 23 November, in response to a question about the size of the European Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman wrote:
We are, as Presidency, doing all we can to work for a solution … We are taking soundings with other member states before Edinburgh.
I checked the newspapers—although I did not do a massive Sherlock Holmes job—and I could not find a single account of the Prime Minister, during the presidency, raising the matter in the House or in the country. No briefing emanated from No. 10, prior to Edinburgh, about public participation in or soundings with other member states about the issues surrounding extra seats.
The Prime Minister also said in that letter:
As far as the redrawing of European Parliamentary constituency boundaries is concerned, various options for doing this are being considered, but I am confident that we can work out a solution once an agreement on the number of seats has been reached.
That agreement was reached at Edinburgh a few weeks later.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that it was Germany's absolute insistence that it should have 18 additional seats—despite the fact that it had previously said that it would not press for them—that precipitated this process? It is another example of our giving in, as we always do in Europe, to the overall pressures exerted by the Christian Democrats and the European People's party, and all that goes with that. That is the real reason for this Bill.

Mr. Rooker: That is xenophobic nonsense. If the structure of the European Parliament is to reflect the people in the nation states, while ensuring that small nations like Luxembourg are not snuffed out, the representation of countries such as Britain, France, Italy and Germany—which all had roughly the same size populations before reunification—must now be adjusted to take account of German reunification. Germany virtually absorbed another nation state of 17 million to 18 million citizens, so it deserves greater representation. No other member state deserves greater representation. On the basis of arithmetical fairness, there would be extra seats for Germany but none for any other country.
It is political logic that has resulted in not just Britain, France and Italy, but all the other countries, except Luxembourg, gaining extra seats. Political logic is the very argument that we would use for Scotland.

Mr. Stephen Milligan: Would not the correct solution have been simply to have given Germany


extra seats to reflect its greater population after reunification? The complication has arisen because the French were afraid of losing out to the Germans.

Mr. Rooker: All this happened a long time ago, at the Edinburgh summit last December. There has been plenty of time for the issues to be resolved.
In my correspondence with the Prime Minister, I said that while we held the presidency Britain should give a democratic lead to Europe by pushing to have the issue resolved. On 30 December, having reached agreement at Edinburgh, he responded:
This breakthrough will give us time to redraw constituency boundaries in time for the June 1994 elections.
He also referred to the importance of the European Parliament being able increasingly to scrutinise the Commission. That is crucial, but nothing happened. There was silence. The Government put forward no proposals for how that would be done.
By February, I had become quite angry and I accused the right hon. Gentleman of seeking to delay the issue to create the conditions for an electoral coup d'etat and have boundaries drawn behind closed doors. That is what will happen under the Bill. It is important to put his response on the record. In his letter of 16 March he said:
the question of how to allocate the extra seats is far from simple. It needs to be considered carefully, and it will be considered carefully. Consultation with Opposition parties will form part of the process. But I am not prepared to discredit the system by forcing colleagues into making unduly hasty and ill-considered judgments".
I should have hoped that it went without saying that
one of our main concerns will be to ensure that whatever methods are used should be seen to be independent of political considerations. Our proposals will maintain the integrity of this country's democratic traditions.
This Bill does not maintain that integrity. Boundaries will be drawn up behind closed doors, without public scrutiny or participation.
Some might take the view that the European elections do not matter. My view is that all elections matter when our constituents are asked to exercise political choice through the ballot box. Anything we do to devalue the procedure for next year's European elections will, at some future time, be used as the thin end of the wedge to undermine what happens in local government and, probably, in this place.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: I had intended to sit down, but as the hon. Gentleman has been generous himself I shall give way first.

Mr. Marlow: In view of the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings and the vehemence with which he expresses them, it would be of interest to many Conservative Members if he would confirm that he will be voting against the Bill.

Mr. Rooker: I shall vote for the reasoned amendment—

Mr. Marlow: Why?

Mr. Rooker: The reasoned amendment sets out the reasons for our opposition to the Government's proposals. The key reason is the damage to the integrity of the democratic process in our electoral system. That should concern all Conservative Members, whether or not they are classed as Euro-sceptics. Labour Members should be

concerned about whether or not we support the move to a more unified Europe. Any damage to the integrity of our elections to the European Parliament could in future be used to damage the integrity of our elections to this place. I am not prepared to stand to one side and keep quiet about that.

Sir Teddy Taylor: You have had to listen to all the Euro-assurances over the year, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you are sad that so many of them are subsequently broken or thrown aside.
I remind those on the Government Front Bench that in 1978, when there was an unusual election system without the Boundary Commission having its proper representation, we were told that it would never happen again. Absolutely key assurances were given, while some people were yawning, yet now we are again being told, despite this Bill, that it will not happen again.
Others have mentioned the obvious objections to the Bill. I hope that the Government will not disregard the Scottish point. Although it does not matter all that much where the seats go, to give one to Wales but not to Scotland could be regarded as rather unfortunate, or even as a slight on Scotland. One reason for that is the figures.
If the Government were to distribute the seats 4:1:1, the representation for Scotland and Wales would be almost identical. It would be 440,000 for Wales and 436,000 for Scotland. However, with no extra Scottish seat, there would be 444,000 electors for each seat in Wales, and 491,000 electors for each seat in Scotland, so a Scottish Euro-constituency is far bigger than a Welsh one.
We should not forget that the spirit of the Act of Union was that Scotland would get more representation. As my hon. Friends often complain, we have 71 Scottish Members of Parliament, when we should have a far smaller number on proportional representation, but we are guaranteed that number of seats. Although, to my knowledge, the EC was not mentioned in the Act of Union 1707, my understanding of the distribution of European seats was that we should try to maintain the spirit of that Act.
I know that it does not matter all that much, and I do not care a great deal where the seats go, but I hope that the Government will not disregard the fact that silly little slights can be taken very badly in Scotland.
I am sure that the Minister of State, Home Office will also be well aware that some of us are suspicious about the Government's preference for Wales. During the recent Maastricht debate, those dreadful Welsh nationalists were jumping up and down to do whatever the Government told them. We had the impression that, if the Government had told the Welsh nationalists to walk into the centre of Trafalgar square and say, "Long live red socialism," while standing on their heads, they would have done it. The Scottish nationalists, by comparison, showed a healthy independence by voting in a more sensible way, and certainly not as Tory stooges.
Quite apart from the obvious issue of not being unkind to Scotland in a foolish way, we should bear in mind the fact that anything the Government now give to Wales but not to Scotland will be viewed against the grave suspicion that they are honouring or trying to reward their friends—those little Welsh nationalists.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend could offer his Scottish compatriots a certain amount of reassurance. Not only will they still be relatively over-represented in the House, but many English seats and English European seats are also represented by Scotsmen.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Right hon. and hon. Members should not think that I am trying to make a case for giving seats to Scotland and Wales. Arithmetically, there is no case, but if one gives a toffee apple to one child, one should give one to the other as well. I am sure that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will say that it is not right to mention children, and that we should talk about brothers. I apologise for that mistake. I withdraw it absolutely, and I hope that she will not quote me, in Glasgow or elsewhere.
From a democratic point of view, which I am sure all Southend residents will share, we are concerned about the casual attitude to democracy stemming from the EC. We have a democratic right to a public inquiry about constituencies. That right has been chucked aside simply because it is a Euro-matter, and because of the alleged time scale.
The other day, I asked the Minister how many letters he had written to the Boundary Commission. The answer was that there had been no correspondence. The Government could have involved the Boundary Commission had they started a little earlier. They could still do it now, although some of their work might have to be set aside, but l hope that the Government will try to make sure that we have a public inquiry.
I am more worried about clause 2(2), which is the kind of thing that King Charles used to do. That splendid chap Oliver Cromwell, who did a great deal of good for Britain, chopped off the king's head because he spent money and acted without parliamentary approval.
The Clerks will have seen that, in clause 2(2), the Government are setting up a committee, and we are letting them spend money before the House of Commons approves it. I did not think that the Home Office would be associated with such measures; it is what we expect of the Foreign Office.
The Home Office is saying, "We are presenting a Bill and we want to spend the money and appoint people before we have parliamentary approval." That is wrong, but we should not get too excited because, as we all know, our democracy is being set aside, washed away and chucked in the bucket as a direct result of our European involvement. Every right hon. and hon. Member knows what is going on and is sad to disregard it. However, I shall put three brief points to the Government.
If we chucked out the Bill, no European country, whether Belgium or the Republic of Ireland, would have any extra MEPs. Would that be a good or a bad thing? First, I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind the Government's problems with financing. The Government face horrible problems with money. I am told they are now borrowing so much money that income tax will have to go up by 2½ p next year just to pay the interest on the money we are borrowing this year. So we should watch the money.
Appointing extra MEPs will cost a great deal of money. The basic salary of an MEP from Britain is £30,800. There will be a subsistence allowance of £128 a day for every day spent away from home, an attendance allowance of £130 a day for every day they sign on at the European Parliament, an allowance of £52,692 for secretarial and

research costs, and an additional allowance for other office costs of £23,060. Then, of course, there are travelling expenses, so the total is £40,000.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I am sorry to be late in interrupting him, but may I take the hon. Gentleman back to the point about the legal consequences of the United Kingdom not taking up the six extra seats? Why is he arguing that, if the United Kingdom chooses not to take up the extra six seats, that necessarily has consequences for other countries? It was not a treaty change; it was a decision of the European Council, and it could well follow that, simply because the United Kingdom chose not to elect six extra MEPs, that would have no effect on the other 11 member states.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I do not have the details, but it was an agreement, not a treaty. The agreement required member states to take appropriate action. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is not in the treaty, but the wording is such that, if one country does not take the steps, the others are unable to do so. As the European Parliament, with 500 MEPs, costs about £390 million, and this little Parliament costs £175 million, we should bear in mind the costs.
The second reason why we should be reluctant to appoint more MEPs is that it would be an insult to Gibraltar. It is totally wrong that right hon. and hon. Members are not prepared to consider the dreadful situation there. It is in the EC, but it is not in the EC. The problems we had with Spain and the need to stay friends with Spain involved various deeds and arrangements in the Council of Ministers and elsewhere, and means that we are treating Gibraltar with contempt. For example, Gibraltar's attempts to build its own little airport have been turned aside by the European Court, because Gibraltar is not in charge of anything.
It is the only part of Europe without representation, it does not have the same rights as French or Portuguese overseas territories. It would be an insult to Mr. Bossano and his excellent democratic Government and to all the people of Gibraltar, in which I have no interest except love and affection for good democrats, were we not to do something before we appoint more MEPs.
Finally, before we appoint more MEPs and agree to spend more money, we have to face up to the financial consequences for political parties in the United Kingdom. I have been astonished to see everyone getting so worked up and excited about Mr. Asil Nadir and possibly the money he has given to the Conservative party. People say that that is bad and unreasonable, but nobody is considering the fact that the European Parliament and the parties in it are keeping the political parties of Britain alive. No one seems to be concerned about that. There is concern about the possibility of graft, corruption and the influence that some chap from Turkey is going to exert over Ministers, but no one is prepared to consider what the European Parliament and European funding—basically slush funding—are doing to political parties in the United Kingdom.
The amount of money involved is enormous. People are not prepared to consider what will happen to the parties and how much more money will be spent if the Bill is passed and there are more MEPs. The amount of money spent on MEPs in 1988 was £26 million—on what are regarded as the operating expenses of political groups, the


European information campaign, the purchase of data processors, the hire and maintenance of equipment and other activities.
That clever man Jean-Marie Le Pen is, I understand, concerning the Scottish Labour party by planning to visit Edinburgh. It should not worry, because this year Mr. Le Pen has held conferences in Paris, Dublin, Rome, Vienna, Venice, London, Lisbon, Madrid and Nice. Such conferences are lovely, because there are about four hours of discussion—

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that Labour Members are not at all concerned about Mr. Le Pen, because, happily, a few hours ago, he announced that he was not visiting Edinburgh. That is a welcome decision for Scotland.

Sir Teddy Taylor: If that is a welcome decision for Scotland, it is a bad one for the five-star hotels. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that, when Mr. Le Pen and his friends go places, they stay in five-star hotels—all Euro-funded with taxpayers' money.
When I meet poor people in Southend and elsewhere who are short of cash and need things doing in their council houses, the fact that those guys are regularly holding great conferences, staying in five-star hotels and not discussing anything but having a glorious time at public expense annoys me. If the Bill goes through, with the help of the Home Office, there will be more money for such events.
I have heard all kinds of stories about the Labour party. I do not want to single the Labour party out, because I am sure that all parties are the same. I have heard astonishing tales of the amount of funding from European Parliament funds that goes to the United Kingdom Labour party. I have tried to find out about that. I have heard astonishing tales about allegedly letting properties, making money for the provision of information and making money for the provision of figures for the United Kingdom Conservative party. I have heard astonishing tales—in fairness, they are not so bad—about the Liberal Democrats because of the special relationship they have with the European Liberals.
The parties are not associated. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) will accept that the People's party, which seems to be the one linked with the Conservatives, does not support Conservative policy at all, but is in favour of federalism and social charters, which I am told our party is against.
I tried to find out how much money is being made. I consulted our splendid House of Commons Library, and it consulted the European Parliament office first. That office said that, if there is any information available about all the money received by the political parties from Europe, it will be available through the political groups in Strasbourg. Our splendid Library staff then went to the European Parliamentary Labour party and the London Office, EPP group, of British Conservatives, to see whether they could supply details of income received via the European Parliament. The Library said:
I am afraid that neither was enthusiastic about supplying figures".
That is terrible because, sadly, as we know, our country is insolvent, and the political parties are too. Everybody seems to be worried about how they can be subject to influence and how my hon. Friend the Member for

Harrow, East and his friends may get their arms twisted by people from Turkey and Cyprus. Should we not be worried about the Euro slush fund that is keeping the parties going? As my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said in his personal statement yesterday, people deserve to be told.
I hope that, before we pass the Bill, the Government will say that, before we agree to more MEPs and more money—all the slush funds to keep parties going and officers paid and events paid for and the handing out of lots of money—people should be told—

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is again making a powerful point. We all have a great deal of respect for our right hon. Friend the Minister. It is open to him to get in touch with central office before he gets to his feet later, and he could probably satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East by telling him precisely how much money the Conservative party has received from European sources over the last year.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sure that all the parties are the same. We have all read about overseas accounts. That splendid chap Lord McAlpine, a great British patriot, knew all about such numbered accounts. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, a straight and honourable chap, is not aware of such events. It is not his fault that he works so hard for his constituents that he sometimes does not know about some of the devious ploys that are adopted by political parties-such as numbered accounts in Jersey and so on. One cannot find out about that, so even if the Minister—

Mr. Cash: Would my hon. Friend accept, following the point that he made to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), that it may be extremely difficult for the Conservative party to he able to give exact figures of the amount of money given in the Conservative cause in respect of the European People's party, because its policies are diametrically opposed to those espoused by the Government in relation to European matters? It would be an absolute scandal if we are taking any money off them.

Sir Teddy Taylor: That is crucial. I hope that the Minister will think about that. I accept that that party's policies are different from the British Tory policies. It wants to do more ridiculous Euro-things. If that party is providing the cash, what kind of influence will that have? Will the Government say that they do not like the EC or make such statements? The vice-chairman of the Conservative party, who works so hard and sometimes pops into debates, will be well aware that, if that party were to develop totally different policies on the EC, it could have frightening consequences for Euro-funding.
We know that the Conservative party is facing a crisis, like all parties. Piles of cash are coming from the EC to the European Parliament fund. That affects not only political parties, but the CBI. I have tried to find out by writing time after time and asking how much money the CBI gets from the Euopean boys for providing information, providing seminars and all the rest of it. It will not tell me.
If we have more MEPs, as suggested in the Bill, it is time that we had the facts from the EC and from this Parliament about where the money goes and who gets it. If there is one thing we are entitled to know in Britain, it


is where the European money goes and to whom. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East knows more about European money than anybody.

Mr. Dykes: Do I assume that my hon. Friend is in favour of the disclosure down to the last pound of all the accounts of the Bruges group?

Sir Teddy Taylor: If a British taxpayer or the taxpayer in Europe is putting money into something, they should be told where it is going. If my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East—I appreciate there are not so many wealthy people these days, because they are members of Lloyd's—wants to give his money to the Bruges group, or to any other group, that is a matter for him. Is taxpayers' money being handed over to promote political efforts and to twist the arms of political parties? I noticed how all the political parties are becoming more and more pro-EC. Why" They say that it is not like that, but they are provided with accommodation and with information.
On the basis of private conversations that I cannot repeat in detail, a former MEP, who was a senior official of the Conservative party, told me that lots of money is going. I also know, from a member of the Labour party who might be unreliable but who seems to be a good chap and supports a good football team, that the same thing is happening in his party. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Strangford (M r. Taylor) can tell us more about what happens in the Ulster Unionist party. He is someone I know I can rely on.
If we are to have more MEPs and spend money on them, we should insist in Committee, with the help of the Labour party, which has always stood for the working man, freedom, liberty and straightness, that every penny of taxpayers' money going to political parties is disclosed. Then at least we would know what is happening.
I see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has kindly come back for my speech and I am grateful that he has returned to hear me. I hope that the Government can give three minor assurances. First, there should be full disclosure of public funding from the European Parliament for political parties. Secondly, we should sort out Gibraltar, which is terribly important. Thirdly, which is also important, as long as we can avoid additional costs, the right thing to do is to do what we should do with all these Bills: we should pay no attention to them. When the vote comes, we should perhaps not express an opinion. The real work comes in Committee. We shall want to keep asking many questions and we shall insist on getting answers. With a new Home Secretary who is prepared to get on with the police, which is an amazing step forward, we look forward to straightforward, honourable answers. I hope that we shall get them.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Membership of the European Community, to which this country assented in a referendum—the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) does not seem to have come to terms with the result, never mind a number of subsequent events—carries with it the requirement in international law to move towards a common system of election to the European Parliament. I regret the fact that since it became clear that the European Community would seek to enlarge the European Parliament to take account

of the adherence of East Germany, the Government have done nothing to advance towards the fulfilment of that international obligation.
The Government have stood on the sidelines, despite the fact that Britain held the presidency for the last six months of last year while these matters were discussed in the European Parliament. Today, the Home Secretary opened his speech by stating his intention, on behalf of the Government, to exercise a veto against the other 11 member countries of the European Community if they introduced a proposal for a proportional system of election. That smacks of the old saw, "Storm in the channel; continent isolated." Yet again, it appears that the Government wish Britain to stand alone, at odds with the growing consensus within the European Community and without any regard to the consequences for this country's standing and influence in the institutions of the Community.
The Bill is unfortunate in that it takes us no nearer the objective of a common electoral system and simply reinforces the discrepancies caused by our system of first past the post. That not only results in our unrepresentative contributions—approximately one quarter of the electorate is unrepresented in the European Parliament—but has the distorting effect of shifting the balance within the European Parliament for other countries as well. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made the point forcefully and I need not labour it. As a matter of comity, it is time that the Government recognised that we do these things not only to our own damage, but to the damage of the institutions to which we subscribe.
Even by the standards of British constitutionalism, the Bill falls far short of what might have been expected. It does not build on our experience of altering European parliamentary boundary seats by establishing boundary commissions and acting on their recommendation after a proper process of scrutiny. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) pointed to the length of time that has elapsed between it becoming clear that an additional six seats would be made available to this country—it is fair to say that that realisation pre-dates Edinburgh, although the change was confirmed at Edinburgh—and the Government's explanation of what they propose to do.
There was no White Paper, there was no Green Paper and there was no statement. No explanation was given in answers to parliamentary questions or in letters to Members of Parliament, and there was no debate in the House. I do not believe that that is an appropriate way in which this country should strengthen its democratic participation in the European Community.
On looking at the terms of the Bill, the position appears to be even more disturbing. The Government are taking it on themselves to establish a committee that will decide what recommendations to make to the Home Secretary, who in turn, under paragraphs 7 and 8 of the schedule, will present them to the House of Commons, subject to such modifications as may be decided on. It is not clear on the face of the Bill whether the modifications are intended to be made as a result of the recommendations of the partisan committee. It is clear on the face of the Bill that the changes may be made by the Home Secretary. That is simply an outrage.
There may be a precedent that gives the Home Secretary a residual power in such matters under the


conventions of this country. Such oddities of constitutional practice certainly exist. But, to my knowledge, it is not a convention that has ever been followed by a Home Secretary.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The power has never been used, but it is part of the legislation on boundary reviews. The Bill merely repeats what is in existing legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's determination was to depart as little as possible from the previous wording. I dare say that he will depart as little as possible from previous practice and that he will not want to present modifications. However, he has that power. It is written into existing legislation that deals with boundary reviews.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister confirms my reading of the Bill. He confirms that the Home Secretary intends to retain a power that, in the context of a procedure involving public inquiries and public representations in which objections can be made, might have no serious consequences. However, in the context of this procedure, in which a committee, appointed by the Home Secretary, is not required to accept representations in the form of public appeal procedures and is not provided in statute with arrangements for modifying its recommendations and publishing them in the normal way, it is a dangerous power. It is an erosion of our normal democratic standards and it undermines the integrity of our democratic institutions.
That such a step should he taken at all is bad. What concerns me is not only the issue of the six seats, but the fact that the procedure is a precedent which will, no doubt, be built on again. The Government give scant regard to the fragile conventions that hold democracy together in this country. When they do not like a local government, they wind it up entirely. How can we take any comfort from the assurances that were given by the Home Secretary earlier in the debate that he does not envisage using this power?
I turn from the inadequacies of the proposed procedures to what might have been included in the Bill. If there is a timing problem—I am not convinced that there is, and what the hon. Member for Sedgefield said about the alternative timetable was extremely compelling—it could be eliminated entirely by adopting a proportional system of election that would not require the Boundary Commission, still less this bastard committee, to determine boundaries.
On the basis of five seats for England and one for Wales, which is the Government's choice—or on the basis, which we believe is more appropriate and which the Labour party has expressed to be more appropriate, of four seats for England and one each for Wales and Scotland—the new seats could have been allocated according to the largest average vote system, under which the number of votes cast for each party would be divided by the number of seats won by that party, plus one. That system operates effectively in the Federal Republic of Germany. It results in a greater proportionality of distribution of seats and in the votes cast for election to the European Parliament being reflected in the number of members elected to the European Parliament.
Few objective people would deny that we have an unjust system. Had we had such a proportional system as I recommend—we should prefer, like the hon. Member for

Perry Barr and the Plant commission, to which the Leader of the Opposition subscribes, a regional list system—we should not have found that more than 2 million people who voted for the Greens in this country at the last elections for the European Parliament did not have a single representative in that Parliament. It was the biggest vote cast for the Green party throughout Europe, but it has no representation in the European Parliament. Furthermore, in 1985 there would not have been a comparable discrimination against those who voted for the alliance parties. Under such a system as I have advocated, the alliance parties would have had some 15 seats.
The Bill is highly defective and should not be passed. We shall therefore vote for the amendment that has been selected by Madam Speaker, though it does not go as far as I would wish it to go in criticising the Government. Furthermore, we shall vote against Second Reading. In doing so, I must make it plain that we have no wish to disfranchise the 17 million East Germans. We wish merely to succumb to the irresistible temptation, after 15 years, to enfranchise 25 per cent. of the British electorate.
We recognise that it is time for this issue to be faced squarely by our Government. In March of this year, proposals were advanced in the European Parliament. We are proud of the fact that the action that we as a party took in the European Court, in which we ought to establish the right of the citizens of this country to a fair voting system, assisted in the process of concentrating minds upon the need to implement the international obligation to move towards a common system of fair voting. We wish that to be done as soon as may be. We do not believe that the Government will be able to adopt this stand-pat position, which the Home Secretary described at the beginning of the debate as the exercise of the veto, for much longer. Justice will be done.

Mr. William Cash: I begin by referring to the provisions in the Bill with which the Home Secretary dealt in his speech. As he mentioned that the Bill is governed to a certain extent by procedures similar to those adopted for previous European parliamentary occasions, I should point out that in 1978 when the proposals—on which, I understand, we rely to some extent for precedent—were first put forward, the powers of that assembly were very different. It was by no means the same kind of Parliament as is envisaged under the Maastricht treaty proposals. Furthermore, it did not meet the aspirations of those who would like to take us further and deeper into a more integrated Europe.
It is important not to allow the Home Secretary to skip over the fact that it is not the 1978 Act, as originally presented to the House and enacted, with which we are concerned when it comes to the main constitutional changes proposed in the Bill. Under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, very significant changes were made to the 1978 Act and it is to those provisions that I wish to refer because they are now part of the 1978 Act, as amended in 1986. As I pointed out in an intervention, it is those provisions which provide, under paragraph 5(a) of schedule 2, for the Boundary Commission, if it thinks fit in respect of European parliamentary constituencies, to cause a local inquiry to be held in respect of any European parliamentary constituency or constituencies.
It is not simply a question of whether, in respect of Westminster, the Government are somehow dodging and weaving—we are talking about the European parliamentary constituencies as stipulated in the 1986 Act. Therefore, the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr ( Mr. Rooker), by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) and by other hon. Members about the Westminster comparison is not wide of the mark—they are dealing with the essential principle. What some of them have not observed, however, is that this is a provision which already applies in respect of European parliamentary constituencies. The commission of the offence is thus compounded by the fact that in 1986 our own Government made provisions of a kind which I believe ought to apply in this Bill.
The problem goes deeper than that. As I pointed out—I am anxious to be corrected if this is wrong, because beneath all this verbiage there is a certain complexity and the Bill has been drafted with considerable skill—one could be forgiven for thinking, when looking at schedule 2, that sometimes it refers to the principal Act and sometimes to the 1986 Act. One has to work out precisely which Act one is talking about at any given moment in time.
Under paragraph 5(a), not only is the Boundary Commission empowered to cause a local inquiry to be held in respect of European parliamentary constituencies, but where it receives representations objecting to the proposed recommendation from an interested authority, that is to say, a county council, a district, a London borough, or a body of electors numbering 500 or more, the commission shall—not "may"—not make recommendations unless, since publication of the notice, a local inquiry has been held in respect of the European parliamentary constituency.
In a recent enactment of the House in respect of the European parliamentary constituency question, there is an obligation not only to have a Boundary Commission review, but to follow simple prescribed procedures. The simple reason for that is that it is not possible for people's views to be taken into account properly unless a public or local inquiry is held.
Within that inquiry, there are also provisions with regard to the application of the Local Government Act 1972 procedures, which govern the manner in which inspectors or persons holding such inquiries conduct their proceedings. I remember that in some ancient tome somebody once said that justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure.
If we look a little downstream in respect of the procedures that were proposed for the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 as applied to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, we find that for the purposes of any such local inquiry the person appointed to hold that inquiry may by summons require any person to attend at a time and place, give evidence, produce documents and take evidence on oath.
There are further provisions with respect to whether people can be imprisoned if they give false evidence. I am not suggesting for one moment that it would automatically follow that those powers would be required, but it appears to me that in respect of the boundary proposals under the committee of men, who I have no doubt will be very distinguished—

Mr. Rooker: They will certainly all be men.

Mr. Cash: Hopefully it will be a committee of men and women. They will be appointed and, as has already been pointed out by hon. Members, they will not be subject to any of the procedures to which I have referred.
I was a little disconcerted by the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to one of my interventions. He suggested that the procedures being followed were in all material respects the same as those being followed in respect of Boundary Commissions for Westminster, let alone the European parliamentary constituencies. I have to admit that I was a little concerned about that.
If, as my right hon. and learned Friend alleges, there is no substantial difference between the provisions of the Bill and the procedures set out in the 1978 and 1986 Acts, I am bound to ask why we are not allowed to have those arrangements, bar only the question of a local inquiry. How long would all this take? As we are dealing with relatively few, large constituencies, would it have made any difference if we had had local inquiries?
I imagine that all the relevant material is already accumulating in the Boundary Commission's computers as a result of the current review. Most of the raw material, which takes time to accumulate, would already be available. I therefore cannot see that there should be much delay.
I am sure that the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), will enlighten me if I am wrong, as I hope that I am in this respect, but I understand that the interested authorities and the 500 electors that I have mentioned are being excluded. That is the essence of the operation. As local representatives and individuals, they should have an opportunity to make their objections known because funny things happen on the way to boundary reviews and it is very important that we get this right. I hope that the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: It will be quite possible for them to make their feelings felt and to make their points, but, alas, they will have to do so in writing because there will almost certainly not be time for the normal local reviews which have been a feature of normal Boundary Commissions in the past. However, the committees will expect to hear from interested parties and will take careful note of what they are told. If there is time, some of the interested parties will be seen and heard.

Mr. Cash: I have always had the greatest faith in my hon. Friend the Minister, but I am not terribly convinced by that reply. It is not a question of the integrity of the so-called three wise men. The point relates to the functions that they are given which enable them, within the statutory arrangements that we are enacting—with or without their abilities, capacity and function—to perform the democratic function about which I am so concerned. Although the people concerned are very important and distinguished, what are they expected to do? By excluding people across the whole of Great Britain from making such representations, we are doing a great disservice to democracy in this country.
Although I have not had a reply to this point—no doubt the Minister of State will assist me when he replies to the debate—I cannot understand why, for the year 1993–94, we are adopting a policy, procedure and principle


which departs from a principle passed as recently as 1986 in respect of European parliamentary constituencies. I simply cannot understand that.
With respect to the time factor, I believe that most of the public inquiries could be disposed of in one or two days. One would not expect them to continue for any length of time. The fact that there are so few of them, and the fact that many may not be contested, suggests that the Government are making a great mountain out of a mole hill—which leaves me with a deepening concern, if not a certain suspicion, about the reasons for all this.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that when we went down the public inquiry route in 1983–84 the European parliamentary boundary proposals were produced in July 1983? Public inquiries were held, the results of which were collated by the Home Office, and the final boundaries were announced in March 1984. We are talking about a time gap of about eight months after the commission reported. Does my hon. Friend really believe that, with that kind of time gap, we could do the whole job in time to put candidates in place before the next European elections?

Mr. Cash: Some fairly sensible points have already been made about where the fault lies, because the timetable was known at the Edinburgh summit. Furthermore, I believe that the issues of principle are so important and overriding that they should not be allowed to interfere with what appears to be a relatively medium-term or short-term consideration.
We are dealing with a very important matter. As some hon. Members have already said, there is a slight difficulty in relation to the proposal in the context of enhancing the powers of the European Parliament if it is seen to be the thin end of the wedge. If the anticipated process of integration and deepening is to continue and we are to establish in the Bill the principle to be used on future occasions, and we have no assurance to the contrary—I do not look for assurance because I object to the issue as a matter of principle—as the deepening process goes on and the neutering of this place continues, it becomes more important to ensure that the democratic process applying to European parliamentary constituencies is enhanced.
Let us not forget that we are dealing with the provision of greater powers. I have pointed out that the European Parliament is now engaged, under the Maastricht treaty, in a process of co-decision which has been greatly underestimated. People who know most about the subject believe that the European Parliament is getting considerably greater powers than many had anticipated—[Interruption] I think I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) say that that is good. He may be saying it in his usual jovial manner, but I gather that he is glad to hear about extra powers being given in that way.
My hon. Friend probably knows that he recently had the support of a distinguished right hon. and learned Member of the Conservative party. I refer to none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in a House Magazine profile in January of this year, was quoted as saying that he, too, was pro-European and held views similar to those held by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East. I will only comment that if my right hon.

and learned Friend holds such views, we must watch with great interest his progress as Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the exchange rate mechanism and economic and monetary union.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to that article, which gave me great pleasure. He may feel reassured about plans for the European Parliament if he accepts my proposition that it does not mean that the powers of national parliaments will be reduced by the powers of the European Parliament being increased in the future. It is a question of the separation of powers and the addition of a separate layer of political activity.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation. I think it is the first time that I have heard him put so much emphasis on the importance of national parliaments, an issue to which I shall come later. We acknowledge that the European Parliament has an important function to perform. But we must make sure, in relation to the decision-making process—another subject which I shall develop—that opinions, when turned into political programmes and policies, reflect, within national parliaments and the European Parliament, a parallel philosophy as expressed by the political parties represented at both levels.
We must consider the deeper political questions that lie at the heart of the Bill. With what sort of parliamentary boundaries are we dealing, and what issues must be considered in connection with the increased number of United Kingdom representatives to be elected to the European Parliament? In that connection, a massive problem is emerging in relation to the Conservative party vis-a-vis the Bill and the widening of the European Community. All Conservative M EPs belong to the European People's party. I have been watching with interest and concern the divergence that has been emerging between that party on the one hand and the Conservative party in this House on the other.
I need not elaborate on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) about financing because I am anxious tonight to concentrate on the issue of compatibility between the policies that we pursue in Britain as members of the Conservative party and the espousal of the basic programme of the European People's party, the detail of which has just become available to me and which sets out the basis on which that party is now going forward—if that is the right word; I prefer to say backward—into Europe.
I will cite a few examples of the way in which the representatives who are supposed to he elected under the proposals now before the House will conduct their policy-making. I am dealing with a matter of fundamental constitutional importance to the British House of Commons and its relationship with the European Parliament, as set out in articles 137 and 138 of the Maastricht treaty. Dealing with the issue of representation and elections, which is what the Bill is all about. the treaty states:
The European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.
I was delighted with the terms used by the Home Secretary to repudiate the idea of that uniform procedure having anything to do with proportional representation. It goes on:


The Council shall, acting unanimously, after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component Members, lay down the appropriate provisions which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
That means that within the European Parliament there is,
under the Maastricht treaty, a requirement for that Parliament, by a majority of its members—I shall later discuss who those members will be—to make decisions about what it will recommend, and its powers in that connection are considerable.
The European People's party, comprising Conservative MEPs and Christian Democrats, is, under the provisions of the Bill, clearly intended to have increased representation. When that happens, there will be an increase in the impact of that party's decision-making, not only on this country but on other European countries, including Germany, which will get a proportion of the additional 18 representatives.
The same will apply to other member states, in each of which candidates will be standing for the European People's party. So that party will have increased representation in the European Parliament. Its members must have the hope of forming a majority view to influence the extent to which there is a move to proportional representation. The European People's party has some extraordinary policies, which are at variance with the policies of the Conservative party in Britain.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I am at a loss to understand what the policies of any party in Europe have to do with the Bill or the amendment. Perhaps the hon. Member will explain the relevance.

Mr. Cash: I will explain. I am considering the procedure when a candidate stands on a platform in connection with the Bill, remembering that our discussion today is about representation in the European Parliament. It is not just a legitimate question; it is an essential question about what is to be achieved. This is not just a constitutional measure; we are dealing with policies in relation to the new Europe that is being created. It is not a technical question of no importance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not convincing me. I shall be very grateful if he returns to the contents of the Bill and of the motion in the names of Opposition Members.

Mr. Cash: Article 236 of the paper to which I have just referred says:
It is the European Parliament, elected by universal suffrage, which primarily ensures that Europe is built"——

Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does the Bill make any reference to an article 236? I cannot find one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am having the same difficulty. I must, for the third time, ask the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to stay within the framework of the Bill and the motion. I shall be very grateful for his co-operation.

Mr. Cash: The article 236 is to be found in the paper to which I have referred. I made that clear, so my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) must not have been listening. I am referring to the powers being sought by European parliamentarians—a matter that is undoubtedly directly relevant to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I respectfully suggest that he read the title of the Bill and direct his remarks to it. I hope he appreciates that I do not want to have to intervene again.

Mr. Cash: The title is the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was referring to the long title.

Mr. Cash: The long title says that the purpose of the Bill is to
Give effect to a Decision of the Council of the European Communities",
taken in Edinburgh, giving 18 seats to the Germans.

Mr. Rooker: What the hon. Gentleman cannot do, and what no one else has done so far, is prejudge the outcome of the elections. The Bill deals with a people's choice. The whole thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument presupposes which parties will win. That is what he has been talking about for the past 10 minutes. As a democrat, he has no such right. The people are sovereign. They decide through the ballot box. The purpose of the Bill is to enable them to do so.

Mr. Cash: I agree very much. I am not prejudging anything. The battleground upon which people are to exercise their freedom of choice in due course will be determined by the manner in which they address themselves, through European parliamentary elections, to attainment of the objective of turning policies into laws. Under the procedures of the Boundary Commission, representations may be made by 500 electors or by an interested local authority. Such people do not just waffle about shape, size and accessibility; they talk about the whole question of the type of representation they want. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and I attended a meeting the other day. We were talking about the boundary review——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me how, when the Boundary Commission looks at areas, it decides what the people think about party policies and makes its judgment accordingly? That is not my understanding of the situation. If the hon. Gentleman cannot give me such an explanation, he must return to the content of the Bill. Otherwise, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Cash: The criteria that ought to be adopted include geography, accessibility, convenience and constituency shape. These are all matters that one would expect to be aired in a public inquiry, if one were held. It is in the course of such exchanges that people raise questions about the kind of constituencies they want.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, referred me to the long title, which indicates that the purpose of the Bill is to
Give effect to a Decision of the Council of the European Communities, 93/81/Euratom, ECSC, EEC, of 1st February 1993 having the effect of increasing the number of United Kingdom representatives to be elected to the European Parliament".
If there is to be an increase in the number of United Kingdom representatives, it must be proper, in the relevant Second Reading debate, to refer to those people——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those remarks are completely irrelevant to the Bill and the motion. I hesitate to repeat myself, but I must warn the hon. Gentleman that if he does not return to the subject of the debate I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Cash: In my view, this Bill disgraces the democratic process along whose lines we expect our democratic system to develop. Over the past 20 or 30 years, clearly defined procedures have been laid down—for example, in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 and the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. There is no doubt whatsoever that this is a departure in principle from those arrangements.
I should like to refer to an excellent research paper. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not regard this as being in any way out of order, as the paper was prepared by a House of Commons research team in connection with this very Bill. It is made perfectly clear that the 1978 precedent is not by any means one upon which we can rely. It deals with the Welsh boundaries body and with the reviews that were carried out as recently as 1991. There is a whole range of recent precedents very much in favour of having a proper public inquiry procedure. The paper refers to the manner in which the whole process ought to be conducted.
Not long ago—on 15 April this year—Mr. Robert Adley, our late, lamented friend and colleague, put to the Secretary of State for the Home Department the following question:
if he will make a statement on the arrangements he intends to make for the additional European parliamentary constituencies.
The Minister of State, in reply, said:
My right hon. and learned Friend is currently consulting with colleagues on this matter. Once proposals are formulated, we will consult formally with the Opposition parties."—[Official Report, 15 April 1993; Vol. 222. c. 938.]

Mr. Dykes: I am sorry to trouble you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I seek your guidance. I am rather puzzled. My hon. Friend is starting to quote a House of Commons research memorandum. Presumably he intends to do so word for word. There may be precedents, but I must ask whether this is a new procedure that is permitted. Is it correct and proper?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the procedure is that there should not be too many quotations. I was listening with great interest and, although it is up to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to make his own speech, I remind him that many other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.

Mr. Cash: I am grateful for that intervention. I was about to read out the Minister of State's reply. He said:
We shall not necessarily use the boundary commissioners to propose the new boundaries because they are very much occupied with the parliamentary boundaries, but we shall want to have similarly independent recommendations for the new Euro-constituencies. We are determined that there will be an opportunity for public consultation, although it will be constrained by a comparatively tight timetable."—[Official Report, 15 April 1993; Vol. 222, c. 938.]
I must say that I gained no satisfaction from the Home Secretary's opening remarks today or from the Minister of State's answer. The proposals are not providing the independent recommendations which would be expected if the arrangements were being made on a reasonable footing.
It is a matter of grave disquiet to me and other hon. Members that the Bill will do a great deal of damage to the integrity and reputation of the House and, indeed, to the processes with which people are used to dealing. Public inquiries may be the only opportunity for people to make representations about the type of constituency in which they wish to vote. I was amazed to hear the rather specious argument about the timetable. It has nothing to do with the timetable. I cannot for the life of me understand why we cannot be told the real reason.
Will the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), or whoever is to wind up the debate, be good enough to answer two simple questions? The first is, what is the real difference between the proposals in the Bill and the arrangements to which we are accustomed—based on real precedents, not merely that of 1978—for European parliamentary constituencies, as developed up until this year? Secondly, what would be the delay if we followed the procedures that have already been well established? I believe that we are entitled to straightforward answers to those questions.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members will be glad to know that I do not intend to speak for as long as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I intend to deal with two specific aspects of the Bill: how the seats have been allocated within the United Kingdom and the system of election.
The House will have noticed that I and my hon. Friends tabled our own reasoned amendment, although Madam Speaker has decided that it should not be selected. We shall, therefore, support the reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition although I wish that they, like us, had mentioned proportional representation.
I wish to chide, albeit gently, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) for some of his remarks about my colleagues in Plaid Cymru. I do not think that he warned them that he was going to mention them—perhaps he had not intended to do so—but it ill becomes any hon. Member to call any other hon. Member a stooge. The House should recognise that members of other parties have the right to decide how to cast their votes on principle. My colleagues in Plaid Cymru have consistently pledged themselves to the European ideal. From time to time we may be found in the Lobby perhaps accepting the lesser of two evils, but we vote according to the principles to which we aspire and according to the ideals that we regard as precious to our countries and our peoples.
I deal first with the allocation of seats, which is an important aspect of the Bill. I have raised the issue several times in the past few months with the Home Secretary and with the Foreign Office, arguing each time that it is important for Scotland to be given an additional seat. I found it depressing to listen to the Home Secretary start on the basis of the numbers game. I do not think that the allocation of any seats, whether for a European constituency, a Westminster constituency or a local government unit, can be based solely on the numbers game; identity, geography and communications should all be taken into account.
It is interesting to trace how the seats were originally allocated for direct election. When the United Kingdom first agreed to the idea that there should be directly-elected


seats to the European Parliament, the argument that the United Kingdom should have 81 or 82 seats was based on the concept that Scotland and Wales should have additional seats. It is effectively recorded by Dr. Garrett FitzGerald in his autobiography "All in a Life", in which he mentions the negotiations and discussions that were held with the then Prime Minister, now Lord Callaghan.
It was argued that the United Kingdom was to have 81 or 82 seats in the European Parliament, Scotland 10 and Wales five. Having won the argument for additional representation at that stage, Scotland was allocated eight seats and Wales four. In 1993, however, Scotland is riot to have an additional seat, although Wales at least is now to reach the position that it should have reached in the 1970s.
I also argued strongly for the geographical dimension to be taken into account. The Home Secretary and other hon. Members found it amusing when I referred to the Highlands and Islands constituency in which Moray is located. The Highlands and Islands constituency stretches some 380 miles from north to south and contains more islands than are attached to Greece. Communications are difficult, and the Member of the European Parliament has to travel by train, boat and plane to meet his or her constituents. I am not making a special plea on behalf of my mother-in-law who is capable of defending her own position. I am talking about the practicalities which would affect any MEP who represented that constituency.
The constituency stretches from Muckle Flugga in the north of Shetland down to the Cumbraes and the islands of Bute and Arran. It covers a huge area, but it has a strong identity and integrity because there is a commonality of difficulties among its rural parts. It is the largest constituency in Europe and has an equivalent land mass to Belgium, but one single MEP is asked to represent the whole area.
I therefore argue that there is a strong case for considering Scotland not on the basis of numbers but on its geographical area. It is on that basis that there are 72 Members of Parliament from Scotland in this House because the House recognises the transport difficulties. Unlike hon. Members with London constituencies, I cannot fly to Inverness. conduct a surgery in the evening and then vote here at 10 pm. Scottish Members of Parliament are here from the beginning of the week until the end because of the geography of our country. The Government must take that geography into account when considering the allocation of seats, as should the Boundary Commission when considering parliamentary constituencies and the Scottish Office when considering local government units.
The hon. Member for Southend, East suggested that Wales had been given a toffee apple because it was to gain an additional seat. I do not begrudge the people of Wales an additional seat, but those who display that attitude towards the nations of Wales and Scotland do themselves and the people of England whom they represent a great disservice because it is not the attitude that the Scots, the Welsh and the English have towards each other. Scotland as a nation argues that it should be compared with nations which have a similar status.
Denmark has a population of 5·1 million and it has 16 seats in the European Parliament. We have 5 million people in Scotland and we get eight seats. It seems that if one votes in Scotland, it is worth half of a Danish vote. The Republic of Ireland has 3·6 million voters and 15 seats—yet again a Scottish vote is worth half that in Eire. Tiny

Luxembourg, which is roughly the same size of our capital city, Edinburgh, has an electorate of 0·4 million and has six seats compared with Scotland's eight.
The Home Secretary had obviously not thought through his remarks carefully when he said that it was only a Conservative Government who would fight for the people of England. That will be noted in Scotland and Wales and offence will be taken, not because of some nicety, but because his remarks show a disregard for feelings and aspirations of those nations. Similar behaviour is evident elsewhere.
The nature of the elections is also a matter of concern.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Lady does not need me to defend her, but does she agree that it would be better if a Minister from the Scottish Office were present on the Government Front Bench? After all, her name must have appeared on the annunciator. Such a presence is especially required when one recalls that, in November 1992, at St. Andrews, the Secretary of State for Scotland gave some specific assurances on this matter. Equally, the introduction to the White Paper, "Taking Stock", referred to the need to
take steps to complement and add to Scotland's strong representation in Europe".
At least we are due an explanation about why that promise has not been honoured.

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. I am conscious of remarks by the Secretary of State, who said that he was bidding high for Scotland's position in Europe. He has not fulfilled that pledge. It is a shame that no one from the Scottish Office is here, unlike the official Opposition, who have maintained a presence in the Chamber. No doubt there are reasons for that absence, but, as a matter of courtesy and given the importance of the Bill, it would have been helpful if someone from the Scottish Office were here, to pay attention at least.

Mr. John Marshall: Would the hon. Lady care to comment on the absence from the Chamber of that most European party, the Liberal Democrats? None of its Scottish, Welsh or English Members is here.

Mrs. Ewing: Far be it from me to defend the Liberal Democrats, but, to be fair to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), he has been present from the start of the debate. Before he departed, he had to listen, at great length, to the hon. Member for Stafford. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was also present for a short time. That, however, is not the point. The fact is that no one from the Scottish Office is present during this important debate.
I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that a principle lies behind the argument about proportional representation. Many of us could spend a great deal of time arguing about the pros and cons of various systems of proportional representation. The principle that underpins our beliefs, however, is that we should move towards proportionality. We should not argue now about particular details.
Article 138 of the treaty of Rome, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, relates to the ideal that. ultimately, a uniform electoral procedure should be followed in all member states, based on the principle of universal suffrage. That procedure is followed in Northern Ireland, but not in mainland Britain.
The amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats refers to the De Gucht report, which has been debated in the


European Parliament. I have followed the arguments about proportional representation with interest, and I am concerned about aspects of that report. Even if proportional representation is not adopted for the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament, I hope that the Government will commit themselves to following that procedure for the next set of European elections.
I want to put down various markers about the De Gucht report and its various recommendations. Karel De Gucht is a Liberal Democrat from Belgium. When he first reported to the European Parliament in 1990, he submitted a draft proposal that would have successfully abolished Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland as electoral entities over a 10-year transitional period. He proposed, initially, to eliminate our first-past-the-post system by introducing multi-Member constituencies that were to become progressively larger until the constituencies corresponded with the member states, with a minimum of three Members per constituency from 1994, a minimum of five Members per constituency from 1999 and no constituencies from 2004.
I find it difficult to agree with that proposal because the identities of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England must be retained in the context of the European Parliament. If the Government or any other parties are considering the De Gucht report, they should be careful about aspects of it.
De Gucht was, originally, not in favour of a threshold being introduced, but he eventually accepted the 5 per cent. proposal. He did not proceed, however, to make it clear that the votes could not be transferred across the boundaries or borders of the various constituent parts of the United Kingdom. If a 5 per cent. threshold applied to a member state, the danger is that the United Kingdom would treat all four of its constituent parts as one. That would have repercussions for the various parties.
In the previous European elections, the Scottish National party took 26 per cent. of the vote in Scotland and we ended up with one of the eight European Members of Parliament to which Scotland is entitled. If that vote were transferred to a United Kingdom-wide vote, the SNP, even after gaining 26 per cent. support in Scotland, would be reduced to 2·6 per cent. of the vote according to the United Kingdom threshold. We would therefore not have gained representation in the European Parliament. That would be a gross insult to those people who turned out and voted for the SNP.

Mr. John D. Taylor: We in the Ulster Unionist party are also extremely conscious of that problem. There is an alternative. If the threshold is decided on a national basis, the SNP could fight in England, where there are many Scottish voters. Certainly the Ulster Unionist party would put up candidates in England if that threshold operated on a national basis.

Mrs. Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point and it has been considered carefully by my party in the past. Various other regulations pertaining to broadcasting, for example, would be unfavourably affected if we put up candidates in English constituencies. I often receive letters from people in England asking me to put up an SNP candidate in their area. There are, however,

logical reasons for not doing so. We are a Scottish-based party and we do not have any imperialist ambitions. We are seeking self-government for our country.
If the De Gucht recommendations for the threshold were applicable across the United Kingdom, as a member state, that would be in breach of the Act of Union of 1707, which retained Scotland as a legal entity. The Scotland-England border is regarded in international law as an international boundary. I would fight to ensure that votes cast in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England were treated separately, whether a 5 per cent. threshold operated for other parties that may stand, such as the Greens, the Monster Raving Loony party or whatever. A 5 per cent. threshold should apply to each of the constituent nations.

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Lady has made a reasonable point. Would she care to enlighten us as to which members of the public have written and from which constituencies suggesting that the SNP should put up candidates in English seats? Did they include people from Southend or Staffordshire?

Mrs. Ewing: I cannot recall, off hand, the exact location of everyone who has written to me. My geography is not perfect. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that I have had several requests from English members of the public who would like SNP candiates to stand in their area. Given that so many former Conservative Members who represented Scotland have had to come south of the border to find seats, other people might find that, if SNP candidates stood in England, there would be too many Scottish accents in the House.
It is wrong to base the allocation of seats solely on numbers. There is a strong principle for other arguments to be brought into play. The people of Scotland will be extremely disappointed that there will not be an additional seat, given the comparisons that I have made with other small nations.
The second issue relates to proportional representation. There have been various signs that the Government are considering the possibility of proportional representation in elections towards the end of the decade. Will the Minister give an assurance that if proportional representation is to come into play, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England will be treated as separate entities and the system will be agreed through consultation with all the political parties in the House, not simply the result of a cosy arrangement between the Government and the Labour Front Bench?

Mr. John Marshall: I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). At one point, he said that he was not prejudging anything. That came as a great revelation because I thought that he prejudged everything relating to Europe. One sometimes thinks that my hon. Friend is one of the Rip van Winkles of British politics because he speaks almost as though we had not joined the European Community in 1973. He certainly speaks as though we did not have a referendum in 1975 and never passed the Single European Act—and, indeed, he did not vote for it.
The debate is interesting because those hon. Members who have complained about time and the fact that they do not accept that as an argument for having the great and the


good to determine the boundaries are the same ones who went on at length during the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. They are the same ones who voted against business motion after business motion and delayed the proceedings of that Bill for the maximum time. Perhaps if my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford had spoken slightly less on that Bill and voted for some business motions, this Bill would have been before the House a long time ago.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend is launching into something that I find slightly unusual in view of the fact that I have always regarded him as an hon. Gentleman and an hon. Friend. Not so long ago, he invited me to his constituency to talk about these matters. Furthermore, it was clear that the audience agreed with what I had to say. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear it in mind that his constituents seemed to share many of my views.

Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend was invited to my constituency, like so many of my hon. Friends. Most of those who come to my constituency support Government policy in its entirety. I believe that my constituents should be given a whole range of policies for examination. I assure my hon. Friend that the number of constituents who wrote to me supporting his point of view could be counted on the fingers of both hands. On the basis of my postbag, he did not attract as much support as perhaps he thought he was attracting at the time.
Hon. Members who argue about time ignore the delay that they caused in the parliamentary process earlier this year. As one who fought two European elections, I find the time argument persuasive. In 1979, I was fortunate enough to be selected to contest the ensuing Euro-election for London, North. At that time, it had 10 Westminster parliamentary constituencies, of which seven were Labour. I had three months in which to become known to 500,000 people. Similarly, in 1984, we did not know the boundaries until March, which was only three months before the election.
Such a time scale makes it impossible for candidates to become known to their electorates and people to judge the worth of the individuals for whom they are being asked to vote. Therefore, any procedure that will expedite the final decision about boundaries must be welcomed.
Some hon. Members have argued that it would be feasible to have the local inquiries and the Boundary Commission deciding the boundaries. Let us go back to 1983. The Boundary Commission produced its proposals in July 1983—undoubtedly, it has been working on them for some months. The inquiries took place in December 1983 and the boundaries were agreed in March 1984. We are talking about a period of about nine months after the original proposals came from the commission. If we adopted that approach tonight, the new boundaries would not be in place in time for the next European elections.
It has been suggested that if we had the system proposed by the Government, which is the same as that which prevailed before the 1979 European elections, the representations made by interested groups would be ignored. That is not the lesson of history because, in 1978, the proposed boundaries for London included one or two absurd suggestions.
The people in London wrote to the commission and said that they did not like what the commission was proposing to do. They recognised that they could not have

a public inquiry, but they believed that, for example, Southgate did not have a great deal of affinity with Hackney—it had an affinity with Finchley, Enfield, North and Edmonton rather than Hackney. The Boundary Commission looked at the maps and said that that was right, and the boundaries were redrawn in that way. If wise men who come forward with proposals make similar mistakes and people write in, those men will listen to what is said and propose boundaries that everyone will find acceptable.
So far as the Scottish argument is concerned, I pay a great tribute to the European Member of Parliament for the Highland and Islands of Scotland. She is an hon. Friend and signed many of my motions. She represented that constituency with a flair that few people could match.
Let us look at the numbers in Scotland. If we had an additional seat in Scotland, I do not believe for one moment that we would be dividing the Highlands and Islands constituency because it is already numerically the smallest of the Scottish constituencies. That extra seat would be in the great industrial belt of Scotland and we would he knocking a bit off Glasgow or one of the Strathclyde constituencies to make another seat in Scotland. That would mean that Scotland, which is over-represented numerically in this House, would be even more over-represented in the European Parliament. It would mean that an average constituency in England would contain 20 per cent. more electors than an average constituency in Scotland. That seems to be unjustified by the geography of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland constituency. Therefore, that argument is not persuasive.
I welcome the fact that we are continuing with our system of single-member constituencies for England, Wales and Scotland. That is a great strength with regard to our representation in the European Parliament. Some of the systems adopted by other countries are inherently undemocratic. The French and German system involves a national list. The French socialists had President Mitterrand at the end of their list in 1979. He stayed as a European Member of Parliament for the first day and then resigned so that someone else could take his place. People were conned by his presence on the list to vote for the French socialists.
The French Gaullists had a tourniquet system under which everyone on the list spent a short time in the European Parliament. Mr. Chirac was a European Member of Parliament for a short time. The House may be interested to know that during that time his button was pressed while he was on duty in Paris—he was recorded as voting in Strasbourg while he was undertaking mayoral duties in Paris. The whole system of a national list is not appropriate to the European scene.
The national list system provided Mr. Le Pen with the ability to produce several European Members of Parliament from France. If the French had had a first-past-the-post individual constituency system, as we have in the United Kingdom, the Le Pen group would not have elected one person to the European Parliament.
Another problem with the national list system in the European Parliament is the huge power that it gave to the party machines. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) will confirm that the Gaullist system was such that, if one got on the wrong side of Mr. Chirac in the European Parliament between 1979 and 1984, one was told that one was out—one would not even be No. 81 on the list in the next election.
The system gives excessive power to the party machine. I do not know how my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford would fare under a national list system, but I do not think that he would even make first reserve. Some hon. Members might say that that is an argument in favour of a national list system, particularly when my hon. Friend is giving one of his not so brief speeches.
The real problem with the national list system is that a constituent who has a problem does not know whom to turn to. I remember being asked years ago by the British unit trust industry to table a question for question time in the European Parliament. We were told that all other unit trust industries throughout the Community felt strongly about the matter and would back us up after we asked our question. We asked the question, and a British Member asked a supplementary. There was another supplementary question from a British Member, and then there was a deathly hush.
I was told that the trouble was that the French industry did not know whom to turn to. The French did not have a particular Member whom they could ask about the subject. The German industry was in the same position. Members of the European Parliament may not have the same number of constituency cases that Members of Parliament at Westminster have, but the number is growing, and it is surely right that the link between the MEP and his constituency should remain as it does in the House of Commons.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Gentleman referred to confusion in the minds of the electors in Northern Ireland. We are Members of the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, and we shall be until we are either abolished or eroded by our masters in Brussels. Confusion arises when constituency cases that are within the remit of the House of Commons are dealt with by some MEPs in Northern Ireland, for the simple reason that industrialists and private citizens do not know where to go, and they end up writing to all three local representatives. The lines get crossed, and we then spend half our time trying to disentangle the mess.

Mr. Marshall: The situation in Northern Ireland is complicated in that there are three MEPs from three different political parties. We all know the particular reasons why there is proportional representation in those elections in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John D. Taylor: What is the reason?

Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Member for Strangford surely cannot be so ignorant or naive that he does not know the reason. Obviously proportional representation exists in Northern Ireland so that both sides of the religious divide can feel that they are represented in the European Parliament. That is probably a good thing, given the unusual politics of Northern Ireland. I spent some years in Glasgow, and I discovered what Irish politics were all about.

Mr. John D. Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Glasgow is not in Ireland.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The accuracy of the remarks of hon. Members is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Marshall: I was about to explain that the politics of Glasgow in the 1960s were similar to the politics of Northern Ireland. I well remember canvassing in a council election and an elector saying that she was tremendously pleased to see a Conservative candidate at last. She then asked what my religion was. I replied Church of England, and added, "I suppose that is it." "No," she said. "You see, I am a Christian and I cannot vote for a Catholic." That was the politics of the east end of Glasgow in 1963, and I suspect that it is the politics of Northern Ireland today.
One of the tragedies of the European Parliament is that, even though MEPs have been directly elected since 1979, the Parliament so far does not have a single seat. The administration is in Luxembourg, the committees sit in Brussels and the plenary sessions take place in Strasbourg. One of the reasons for that is the indifference of national state governments to that problem. The absence of a single seat for the European Parliament affects its efficiency and, therefore, affects the efficiency of those who are elected to it and whose election we are discussing this evening.

Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the European Parliament had one seat the administration would be cheaper, which would be beneficial to the United Kingdom and to all the other members of EC?

Mr. Marshall: I shall answer that intervention briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I saw you confer with one of the Clerks. It obviously would be cheaper, more efficient and more convenient for those who work in the European Parliament if everything were centralised rather than having three different centres, which benefits no one.
The European Parliament can be said to have in some ways power without responsibility. It has the power to vote for expenditure without the responsibility for raising the taxes to meet that expenditure. That is one issue which the Foreign Office and others will have to consider in the future.
The Bill takes account of the need to have the boundaries in place in good time. Without the Bill, there would be a grave danger that the boundaries would be agreed far too late to allow candidates in the constituencies to mount effective campaigns. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading and have a speedy Committee stage. I also hope that the Bill will be approved by their Lordships before both Houses rise for the summer recess. It is I think important that these constituency boundaries are agreed speedily so that candidates know where their constituencies are to be and can get to know their electorates and, even more importantly, their electorates can get to know them.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I am delighted to catch your eye. Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow that ridiculous speech by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). His characterisation of Glasgow was outrageous. To suggest that religion is a factor in Glasgow politics in this day and age is nonsense and will not be well received by the people of Scotland.
Likewise, the hon. Gentleman's explanation of why Northern Ireland was given a rigged electoral system for the European elections was disgraceful. Northern Ireland Members represent people irrespective of their religion—whether they are Roman Catholic or Protestant. We are


delighted to have the privilege to represent them in this, our sovereign Parliament. We represent our constituents in the same way as Irish Catholics and Protestants in England are represented by Conservative and Labour Members. We resent the hon. Member's interpretation of the way in which seats are allocated to the Province of Northern Ireland.
The hon Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred in his usual humorous way to the European Community and in particular to the operations of the European Parliament. He referred to the funding of the British Labour party and Conservative party by the European Parliament. He challenged me to spell out the exact figures. He referred to the European information fund as a slush fund. That was somewhat unkind.
The hon. Member for Southend, East implied that there was a great deal of secrecy about the European information fund. He said that he had tried to obtain details of the funding of the Conservative party and the Labour party from the House of Commons Library and had failed. He said that he had contacted the European Parliament offices at Queen Anne's gate and, once again, had failed. But there is no secrecy whatever about the fund.
The European information fund is included in the parliamentary section of the budget of the European Community. A specific line in that budget refers to the European information fund. The result is that the British Conservative and Labour parties each get about £1 million from Europe to assist in the funding of information relating to the European elections in the 12 months between now and polling day.
It is not just the Conservative and Labour parties, but the Scottish National party, the Ulster Unionist party, the Social Democratic Labour party and even the Democratic Unionist party that are assisted in that way. We get only a few thousand pounds each because we are small parties, but the two main British parties do not hide the fact that they get £1 million or thereabouts each. This year, the Labour party will get much more than the Conservative party, because it is now the largest party from the United Kingdom in the European Parliament. So there is nothing hidden. It is not a slush fund. The figures are all there for everyone to inspect, and that is how it should be.
We must remember why we are having this debate and why the Government are presenting the Bill. It is because of the new order in Europe. The whole political scene in central Europe is changing. The Soviet Union has broken up. A vacuum has been created in central and eastern Europe. Germany has become united and is replacing the Soviet Union in that vacuum. It has taken the initiative in recognising several states in the former Yugoslavia. It is the new role of Germany in Europe which brings about the need for more seats for Germany in the European Parliament. It is only because eastern and western Germany have formed a united Germany that we in the United Kingdom are getting six new seats. Therefore, we must adjust to the new European order, which means accommodating greater Germany in the European Parliament and adapting to its changing role in the Community as the lead nation in western Europe.
The European Parliament is not a real Parliament, like this one. It has no Government and no Executive. It does not appoint a Cabinet. That is not to say that it is not important. It has an important consultative role and some

major powers, such as the right to abolish the Commission, to approve the budget and to approve the enlargement of the European Community.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the United States Congress as not being a proper parliamentary body because it does not appoint an Executive?

Mr. Taylor: That is a fair point, but Congress has the right to make laws. The European Parliament has no legislative role. It has powers to abolish the Commission and to approve the budget and the enlargement of the European Community. Beyond that, it is in reality a talking shop, as I know from my 10 years there. It is a useful consultative body where the peoples of Europe at least have a chance to express their views on the Commission's diktats. If we did not have a Parliament in Strasbourg, the Commission would get away with more than it does at present.

Mrs. Currie: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I wonder whether he has read the Maastricht treaty and knows of the additional powers that will be given to the European Parliament. The European Parliament will have one thing that this House does not have and probably will never have, which is a veto over legislation affecting the whole of Europe.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, let me point out that we are not debating the constitutional niceties of the European Parliament. We are considering the number of seats, boring though that may be.

Mr. Taylor: I accept your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was talking about the Parliament to which we elect Members. If the hon. Lady had been present for most of the debate she would have heard the additional powers under the Maastricht agreement referred to on numerous occasions. I am well aware of them, having read that agreement dozens of times. Indeed, I am alarmed at them because they transfer further powers from our national Parliament to Strasbourg.
The proposals before the House are alarming because they change the procedure for changing United Kingdom constituency boundaries. In two respects they create concern. First, the Boundary Commission will not play a role. Instead, there will be a boundary committee. Secondly, the public will not have an opportunity at a public inquiry to express their views on the recommended revised constituency boundaries.
In so far as the first concern applies to us in the Ulster Unionist party, we were encouraged by the Secretary of State's speech this afternoon. He made it clear that, to a large extent, the role of the committees would be similar to that of the Boundary Commission and that, in practice, boundary commissioners could well serve on the committees and the committees would apply the same criteria as the Boundary Commission. In that respect, our anxiety has been overcome to a large extent.
Our anxiety remains about the lack of a public contribution to the procedure—the refusal to have public inquiries into the recommendations of these boundary committees. I require the Minister who will reply to spell out more carefully and to persuade us on the Ulster Unionist Benches that there is not enough time between now and the European Parliament election in June 1994 to


have public inquiries before reaching a decision on the final boundaries of these European constituencies. We need satisfaction on that.
We in the Ulster Unionist party recognise that time is running out. Luckily, the new boundaries for European constituencies in the United Kingdom do not apply to us in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we can prepare for the forthcoming European elections. We have advertised already for our candidates and within a few weeks we shall close the list. I am arranging meetings this autumn in my constituency for the European elections. I assume that other parties in the House also want to get on with the election machinery. They cannot do so until we know what the constituency boundaries are in England and Wales. Therefore, I recognise the Government's case that a sense of urgency is required in deciding these new boundaries.
We certainly subscribe to a uniform electoral system for the European Parliament throughout Europe and certainly here in the United Kingdom. We are moving towards that in stages. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) referred to the De Gucht report. It implies a gradual movement towards a common electoral system in Europe, yet we do not have one in the United Kingdom. Paragraph 3 of article 138 of the Maastricht agreement states:
The European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.
That is what we in the Ulster Unionist party should like to see. How can we debate having a common system with the European Parliament when we do not even have one here in the United Kingdom? We have a gerrymandered system. In one part of the United Kingdom, 500,000 people are required to elect one MEP and in another part, Northern Ireland, only 300,000 people are required to elect an MEP. We have had an explanation. The cat was let out of the bag by the hon. Member for Hendon, South when he said that it was rigged in Northern Ireland for sectarian reasons to ensure that a Catholic was elected. That is an insult to the population of Northern Ireland, but that was the sectarian thinking behind the Conservative party when it decided to give Northern Ireland more seats than it deserved on a numerical basis.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman's memory must have slipped, because it was the Labour Government and Lord Callaghan who brought in the legislation making arrangements for the European elections in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Taylor: It was certainly a Labour Government who had the full support of the Conservative party, and the Conservative party supports it tonight. I shall give way to the Minister if he wishes to dissociate himself from that. The Minister remains seated and refuses to comment, confirming my point that the Conservative party supports the idea of the sectarian allocation of seats in Northern Ireland rather than a fair allocation throughout the United Kingdom.
That unfair allocation of seats affects the whole of the European Parliament. That point was made by the leader of the Scottish National party. Scotland is underrepresented in the European Parliament, though not on the basis of its representation from the United Kingdom, and I do not agree with that. Scotland has fair

representation when compared with England and Wales. The Government's new proposals are fair on the basis of numbers for Scotland, Wales and England. But Scotland is unfairly treated when compared with other sovereign nations. It is unfair that Scotland should have only eight seats for 5 million people while Denmark has 16 seats for 5 million people. That is not equity, fair representation or fair play.
When we discuss a uniform electoral system for European elections within the United Kingdom and the European Community, we must ensure that if there is to be an increase in respect for the European Parliament—there is not much respect for it at present—it must be seen to be really democratic. Representation must be fair throughout the European Community. Under the new proposals recommended by the Minister tonight, only 60,000 voters will be required in Luxembourg to elect one MEP, while 800,000 voters in Germany will be required to elect only one MEP. That is neither a democratic forum nor a fair electoral system and it creates a Parliament that is not representative of the people of Europe.
We are creating a Parliament with more powers over this nation and other Parliaments of Europe, but that Parliament is undemocratic.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Before my right hon. Friend develops that point, may I ask him whether he accepts that to move to a concept of a list system with proportionate numbers required to elect a person to represent constituencies in this nation would be wrong and undemocratic if that list were so limited that smaller, regional parties could not be elected?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, we can have list systems on a national or regional basis. Both types of system apply at present in the European parliamentary elections, depending on the country. For example, Belgium has two regional list systems whereas Denmark has just one national list system, so the systems vary. The United Kingdom would have to ensure that its distinctive regions—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland especially—had the right to have their own representatives elected.
However, if the United Kingdom has a national list system we shall eventually have Ulster Unionist candidates standing in Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool and London because there are at least a million Ulstermen living in Britain. The same could be said for Scottish nationalists. The choice is between regional lists or so-called provincial parties entering the national political scene.
Looking ahead, to give the European Parliament greater respect among the peoples of Europe, the electoral system must be uniform, which means one man, one vote and that one vote must have equal value throughout Europe. It is not right that Luxembourg should have six seats and that 60,000 people should be able to elect one MEP there, whereas it now takes nearly a million people in Germany to elect one MEP.
May I add my support to those who have mentioned the position of Gibraltar? It is outrageous that, although Gibraltar joined the European Community in 1973—long before Spain joined—it still has no voice or representation other than an honorary voluntary group of Members of the European Parliament who look after its interests in that Assembly. In recent years, since Spain joined, there has been a form of discrimination against Gibraltar and it has not been given its full rights. The Government have a


responsibility for Gibraltar and should try to ensure that it has a means of expressing its interest within the elected bodies of Europe and is treated as a full member of the European Community.
The Ulster Unionist party is concerned about the Bill. We hope that the Minister of State, in his reply, will assure us that there is an urgency to get the legislation in operation and the boundaries confirmed quickly. We hope that he will assure us that this is simply a one-off and that never again will a committee decide the boundaries. I hope that we shall return to decisions being made by boundary commissioners with public inquiries.
The point made earlier about future member countries joining the European Parliament was simply kite flying. It should be recalled that, when new members such as Spain, Portugal and Greece joined, there was no question of changing the number of seats allocated to the United Kingdom. Those remained at 81. The new countries were simply given their own seats but the existing countries' seats did not change.

Mr. Quentin Davies: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). I agreed with much of what he said, but I was surprised—as were other hon. Members on both sides of the House, to judge from their facial reactions—by his statement that the European Parliament has no legislative powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Currie) rightly picked him up on that and said that it has the power of veto. It now has distinct legislative powers in formulating European directives, which is another word for European laws. Article 189, paragraphs a, b and c, of the Maastricht treaty set out in considerable detail how those procedures will work. The Parliament has always had legislative powers, but it now has very real powers and I hope that it will use them.
Most of the rest of what the right hon. Gentleman said seemed to be sensible. He expressed some concern, which I share, at any change being introduced into the system for deciding on constituency boundaries in this country. We are all proud of being the oldest successful democracy in the world and of the integrity of our system. We are proud that such ills as gerrymandering do not apply in our country.
There is a great deal of public confidence in the impartiality and effectiveness of the Boundary Commission, although some of us may be inconvenienced by its proposals and decisions. I am inconvenienced by its latest proposal, which aims to cut my constituency in half. I do not like that at all. It is rather like an umpire's ruling: one has to decide whether the ruling suits one's temporary convenience or whether it is based on a fair interpretation of the rules.
As the right hon. Member for Strangford said, the Government's proposals follow as closely as possible, in the limited time scale, the system that the Boundary Commission generally uses to determine United Kingdom constituency boundaries. That is reassuring. We have also been assured that this is simply a one-off—the only occasion on which this new system will be implemented—and that thereafter the Boundary Commission will resume its normal role.
There has been much inevitable experiment in the creation of the Community. There have been many

constitutional changes, the most recent of which was the Maastricht treaty, and in 12 years the European Parliament has moved from indirect to direct elections. It is not at all scandalous or shocking that there is to be one last anomaly before we move to the new system.
I was pleased that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged on behalf of his party that the Government proposals are fair for the United Kingdom. There was a desperate try-on by hon. Members who suggested that we should use this opportunity further to enhance the existing bias in favour of Scotland by giving it an extra seat, although Scotland is clearly over-represented in the European Parliament and, indeed, in this Parliament. I am glad that the Government resisted the temptation to make such an irrational move.
I was equally in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman in his strictures that the Community is still insufficiently democratic. One of the impressive features of the Community is that it brings together 12 countries which have in common a genuine and strong commitment to democracy. In many ways, that commitment is more vocal and explicit in those member states which have not been able to take that for granted for as long as we have. Democracy is the fundamental principle of political life that we wish to retain.
There is some irony in the fact that in many ways the Community is a travesty of democracy. An enormous amount of power resides in the Commission, which is not elected and is not in any direct sense democratically accountable. However, I am pleased that in future it will be more subject to the oversight of the European Parliament than it has been in the past. A great deal of power also resides in the Council of Ministers, which is rather like an 18th century cabal, meeting behind closed doors and taking decisions on behalf of people without exposing the arguments which lead to its conclusions.
There has been a significant improvement in the Council's workings, thanks to the British initiative at the Edinburgh summit. It has been decided that in some of its legislative law-making sessions the Council of Ministers will have open public sessions. That is a great improvement.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how his remarks are relevant to the Second Reading of the Bill that is before us?

Mr. Davies: When discussing how the European Parliament is to be elected, it is important to be clear about what that Parliament is. It has been suggested that that Parliament is not a law-making body.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not in the Bill.

Mr. Davies: I think you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the system for election to the European Parliament must be viable and democratic. In that context, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who in his excellent speech set out a strong case for adopting national lists—an ill which besets some of our Community partners. I hope that we shall not introduce that. My hon. Friend forcefully set out some of the well-known objections to a system of national lists or proportional representation. Such systems greatly increase the power of the party machines. That is undersirable in itself. It also reduces the accountability of elected representatives, who have force only if they are


responsible to a specified body of electors. That is the direct relationship which exists in this country, and long may we preserve it in national and European elections.
A PR and national lists system is profoundly subversive to the sense of responsibility required of those who hold elected office in a democracy. It is no accident that the French national delegation to the European Parliament has an appalling attendance record. I do not wish that to be interpreted as chauvinistic because I am a great admirer and lover of France, but Committees of the European Parliament often find themselves in court because representatives from France and other countries have not turned up.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has got the message. His remarks are not relevant to what we are discussing.

Mr. Davies: I acknowledge that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for not stopping me earlier. I thought that the points were worth making.
Perhaps I may be permitted to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on seizing the chance at the Edinburgh summit to negotiate an increase in the number of British seats. It would have been possible for the new German Lander to be accommodated without Britain enjoying an increase in representation. The Government have.been extremely effective negotiators throughout the Maastricht process and in other contexts and, as good negotiators sometimes must, they have seized the chance and brought to the House an extremely good deal. I shall be proud to support it in the Lobby.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The Bill is a direct consequence of the reunification of Germany. It became inevitable when East Germany became part of a united Germany that it would expect some representation in the European Parliament. Despite the inevitability of that, it is clear that the increase in German representation has caused difficulty at intergovernmental conferences, and at subsequent meetings of the Council of Ministers. That is because, historically, the larger European Community countries have enjoyed, whatever the size of their population in precise mathematical terms, essentially the same representation in the European Parliament.
For the moment, Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom each has 81 members in the European Parliament. Although there is some relationship between a country's population and its representation in that Parliament, it is not based on a precise mathematical formula. Larger countries have more members than smaller countries.
Luxembourg is hugely over-represented. It has been allowed six seats, to provide some political diversity in its representation. Those six MEPs represent a population that is rather smaller than that in a single United Kingdom European constituency. In that context, the argument about Scotland is relevant, because the representation for Luxembourg represents that country's nationhood. Scotland should also be afforded representation according to its sense of nationhood.
Scottish Members of the European Parliament work conscientiously on behalf of their constituents. I know

how much they want the boundaries to be redrawn so that there can be an extra seat for Scotland. It is right that those who have urged that should be respected.

Mr. Dalyell: Once again, there is no representative here from the Scottish Office. There was an obligation on the Scottish Office to ensure that a representative attended this debate, because it gave clear promises that that would happen. Had it not made that promise, matters might have been different. It made that promise at a time when it wanted to get something else through the House.

Mr. Hoon: I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will have been noted by those on the Treasury Bench.
The inevitability of the decision in principle to give Germany additional representation was clear as long ago as 1990, and the decision in practice to implement that was taken as long ago as December, at the Edinburgh summit. Hon. Members on both sides of the House had the clear expectation that, once the decision had been taken, the appropriate Bill would be introduced quickly. Indeed, I remember the Prime Minister answering a question about that at the time. We all expected the debate that we are having today, some six months later, to take place much earlier, possibly before the Christmas recess.
Despite everyone knowing that the changes had to be made before June next year—a limited time scale that has already been referred to—it is now July, less than a year before the next European elections. The Government have sat on their hands for the past six months, and have not taken the position seriously. The Government's rather ineffectual reason for delay has been the pressure of legislation since last December. They will have to come up with a better explanation than that, especially in view of their assertion that, at this late stage, there is no time to put the matter before the boundary commissioners. If that is true, why did they not introduce the Bill much earlier?
Examination of the Bill leaves us sceptical about the Government's real intentions and motivations. The European parliamentary constituency committees will have members appointed by the Home Secretary, on terms and conditions established by the Home Secretary and, where relevant, even paid by the Home Secretary. Any doubt about the potential for Government interference in the work of the committees will be banished after reading the schedule to the Bill.
Earlier in the debate, there was some discussion about the procedure to be adopted by the committees, and we are concerned about what the Government have in mind. The first stage of the procedure set out in the schedule is that the committee should submit a report on the draft boundaries that it recommends. Paragraph 6 requires that the report should contain the name of the suggested constituency. Thereafter, the report must be laid before Parliament, with a draft Order in Council.
At that stage, the Home Secretary has the opportunity to make modifications. We are told that such a provision is included in all Boundary Commission legislation. However, it is unsatisfactory to have it included in this Bill, because, if the Government have their way, there will be no public hearings on the recommendations. Simply because that provision has been included in previous legislation does not mean that on this unique occasion—or so we are told—there is any necessity to afford the Home Secretary the opportunity to make changes without reference back to the committees.
Not only will the Home Secretary have the opportunity to make modifications after receipt of the report, but paragraph 8(1) provides that he can then make further consequential changes—again without reference back to the committees. Thereafter, the report will come before the House, which will also have the opportunity to make changes.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will explain why paragraph 8(6), which prohibits any judicial review of the process, is necessary. The Home Secretary's fingerprints are all over the procedure. Not only are the Government anxious to ensure that they get their own way about how the committees are constituted and how they work, but they are excluding the possibility of a legal challenge to any of the recommendations once they are published. An extraordinary range of powers will be available to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: In case I do not reach the hon. Gentleman's speech when I reply, as he is rather far down the list of speakers, I want to tell him that the real reason for not having the judicial review process is that the House will have the last word on whether or not to accept the recommendations.
However, it could be possible—some have intimated as much tonight�žthat those who do not want the extra seats to be taken up. by this or any other country, will embark on a series of judicial reviews that could take us past the date by which the legislation must be in place if we and other countries are to implement the agreement. I t is a protective measure.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, but perhaps the Government should have thought of that a little earlier in the process. There have been judicial reviews of previous Boundary Commission decisions. That is the sort of protection that is afforded to citizens in a democratic society, and it is what we expect when we have an independent judicial system.
The Government's explanation would not be wholly convincing to someone looking at the Bill's proposals for the redrawing of boundaries in a democratic society. Without knowing the background and the context, and without the benefit of the Minister's explanation, that person would have some doubts about the integrity of our system for drawing up boundaries.
The purpose of having an independent Boundary Commission—a system that is admired throughout the world—is to ensure that we produce not only boundaries that are fair but, crucially, boundaries that are seen to be fair. I regret that I am not satisfied that the committees will achieve that.
This is the first use of ad hoc arrangements for some considerable time. Boundaries used to be reviewed on an ad hoc basis, but since the second world war we have avoided that. It is unfortunate that the Government are now reverting to the sort of practice that they and every other post-war Governments have abandoned.
A further point is relevant to the shortage of time that has been caused by the Government's delay in introducing the Bill. The consequence of the current boundary review for the United Kingdom Parliament is that there will have to be a further European constituency review. Not only will those boundaries have to be redrawn in time for the 1994 election, but when the boundary review for this House is completed, the Government will then be

statutorily required to review the European boundaries again. There will be two sets of changes, one in 1994 and one in the period leading up to 1999. That is unfortunate in terms of the integrity and cohesiveness of the European constituencies.
The real reason for the delay in introducing the Bill is clear from today's Order Paper. There are 25 signatures on the reasoned amendment tabled by the Government's internal opponents, the Maastricht rebels. The Government were not prepared to introduce this Bill during the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill, because they thought that they would lose. It is interesting that the Government are still concerned that they will lose, and are prepared to make certain concessions because they know that they cannot command their own majority in the House.
It seems to me that the Government have avoided bringing forward legislation on a matter of constitutional significance because they have no confidence in their ability to command a majority of their own party. That is a very poor reason for delaying the progress of the legislation and to prevent the public from being engaged in consultation on the nature of the boundary review. It is a poor reason to put before the country.

Mr. Michael Bates: I am grateful for opportunity to speak in tonight's important debate. Before addressing myself to clause 2, which particularly interests me, I shall make a few general comments within the close boundaries that you have set out, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The top point that we need to recognise is that the Bill represents an opportunity for the United Kingdom to have six additional seats and voices in the European Parliament. Most people would accept that as good and worthy. I have not heard it stated at any point in the debate that there is no need to review the structures and allocations of the European parliamentary constituencies.
In the light of these new seats, it is clear that the unification of Germany resulted in a disproportionate number of electors per constituency in Germany compared with other areas of the European Community. We were all in favour of embracing East Germany. The policy goes back two decades or more—ever since Germany was divided—that, when East Germany, with its huge economic and social problems, joined the European Community, we should ensure that those people had representation. That was borne out in the 18 additional seats to be given to Germany.
In the same way, I fervently believe that, when we enlarge the European Community still further, those new member states should have voices in the European Parliament.
It is critical that we have the extra seats, because one of the key elements of the Maastricht treaty is to increase the role and responsibility of the European Parliament. Clearly, if it is to have more power and responsibility, I for one would welcome additional representatives from the United Kingdom to ensure that our case is put strongly.
Anyone who would seek to delay the progress of the Bill still further and ensure that we do not have fair representation in the European Parliament should seriously question his commitment to the democratic process within the European Community.
Another important consideration—this is where I focus on clause 2—is the tight timetable to which we are working. The committees will be established after Second Reading, and will present their initial recommendations in late July and early August, and then there will be a period of consultation during the autumn.
The period of consultation is critical. Although there will not be the traditional public meetings, due to the short time scale, there will be an opportunity for people to make representations. Many hon. Members and political parties and organisations with an interest in this matter will take the opportunity to submit written representations to be considered during the consultation period in the autumn.
The measures have to be in place by next June for the elections to take place. Reference has been made to the progress which has already been made in preparing for the elections. The tight timetable requires a curtailing and condensing of the usual consultation period, while paying due regard to the views and aspirations of the people they are seeking to represent.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): My hon. Friend is making an important point. Is it not a clear and reassuring example of how the creation of the European Community has made international co-operation and partnership much easier that the Germans have accepted without much demur a much larger electorate for each of their seats than any of the other countries in the Community? At a time when many people are concentrating on the differences of opinion between countries in the European Community, that is a reassuring example of the way in which co-operation is growing among the partners.

Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is absolutely right. Many people will recognise that one of the great triumphs of the period of the British presidency of the European Community was achieving just that—a period of consultation in which difficult legislation containing difficult proposals which, five, IO or 15 years ago, would have been the source of great consternation and division within the Community, was decided sensibly and fairly.
It is true that Germany has a population per MEP of nearly 1 million. It is also true that Luxembourg has about 66,000 people per constituency. Those points are clear and accepted. One of the advantages of the additional six seats will be to reduce the average size of the European parliamentary constituency.

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend is describing accurately some of the imbalances which are causing injustice in the size of the parliamentary constituencies throughout Europe. Will he comment on the imbalance between the electorate of 594,000 in the North Chiltern seat which at the moment is called South Bedfordshire, which I have been asked to fight next June and look forward to doing so very much indeed, with the seat in the highlands and islands, which was referred to earlier in the debate and which has an electorate of 327,000? Does he agree that we have a great deal to consider in Britain before we look at other countries? Does he share my concern that, were the Opposition amendment to be accepted, that imbalance would get worse?

Mr. Bates: My hon. Friend is quite right to make that point. I place alongside my hon. Friend's example, as evidence before the House, my own constituency in the European context of Cleveland and Yorkshire, North which has an electorate of 580,297. That begs a comparison with other constituencies. Today we have focused on the representation of Scotland, of Wales and of England. There is a fair point to make about representation.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) spoke about the geographical size of some of the Scottish constituencies. However, there are also some fair-sized English constituencies. One example is Cleveland and Yorkshire, North. From Sedburgh in one corner to Loftus in the other corner is a distance of 85 miles. There are some fairly sizeable constituencies which require representation just as much as others do.
I point out that many of us, especially in the north-east of England, which is an area in great need of development although it has benefited from much already, are aware that we do not have a seat at the Cabinet table. Scotland has a seat there. Unlike Wales, we do not have a seat at the Cabinet table. Scotland and Wales have more representation than the regions.
People say that Scotland and Wales are identifiable communities with a strong history. However, the kingdom of Northumbria and the people of Yorkshire point to their history, which we have been considering in the context of the Local Government Commission. The history of Yorkshire goes back at least a millennium. The history of Northumbria goes back even further, to Bede and Cuthbert, the people who brought Christianity, culture and all things that are good to this country. They deserve to be recognised, too.
I believe that, within the time scale available, the Bill is by far the best way forward. I urge all hon. Members who believe that this country should have a strong voice in the European Parliament, which in our heart of hearts we all believe, to realise that to delay matters further would be simply to play into the hands of and give a stronger voice to our European competitors within the Community.

9 pm

Mr. George Stevenson: Despite the Home Secretary's complacent attitude when opening the debate, the Bill is dangerous to the democratic process. Given the situation, no one argues that there is no need to speed up the process, but what cannot be justified, although Conservative Members have tried to justify it today, is an abandonment of the democratic process. That is the decision that the House will be asked to take on Second Reading.
The Bill will bring the whole system into disrepute. We are told that the additional seats must be subject to a committee system and not to the Boundary Commission system. We are also told that the committees may include members of the Boundary Commission. If the Boundary Commission members are so busy, how will they find time to be members of the committees as well? The Minister may deal with that point later.
We are told that we need the committees because of a problem of time scale. That is an important problem, but it is not insuperable. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) effectively and comprehensively destroyed that argument. The committees will be


Government-appointed. They will be responsible directly to the Home Secretary. If we believe that there will not be many objections, or that the objections will not be complicated and forcefully pursued, we delude ourselves. In the face of those possibilities, we shall rely, according to the Bill, on the Home Secretary's decision. There will be no public inquiry and no public scrutiny.
Various hon. Members have told us, "Don't worry. It is one off. The Government do not intend to use this procedure again." Hon. Members who are satisfied with those assurances may be willing to support the Government in the Lobbies this evening. Given what has happened, and the problems with which we are dealing, I am rather sceptical. We may rue the day that we gave the Government such a comprehensive power.
Why have the Government, for some reason or another, chosen to delay the introduction of the Bill? The European Parliament knew about the six additional seats as long as June 1992, because the change was outlined in reports given to it. Those at the Edinburgh summit knew about the additional seats in December 1992, yet the Bill was not produced until II June this year.
I do not accept the argument that that is a reasonable delay. The real reason may be that the Government were preoccupied with the parliamentary Boundary Commission. They may have insisted that it got to work on the parliamentary boundaries because they saw some advantage in revised parliamentary boundaries. Whatever the reasons for that unjustified delay, they have seriously reduced the time scale available to us in which to consider these important matters.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister's statement last December, that the Boundary Commission provisions would apply to these additional seats, has been cynically rejected and is not worth the paper upon which it is written.
The distribution of these seats is critical. When the Bill was published, the Secretary of State was quoted as saying that he had decided that the extra seats would be distributed on the basis of arithmetical fairness. That seems to be neat and tidy.

Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman has strong feelings about the delay and wonders whether we should proceed with a system that does not include public inquiries. As he is still a serving Member of the European Parliament, would he in any way be happy about a delay tht prevented us from taking on board these additional six seats? What would happen in the European Parliament to the influence of this country, whichever party held those seats, if we were not to proceed with the Bill?

Mr. Stevenson: The hon. Lady has not been here for the whole of the debate. I said at the beginning of my speech that the time scale is important, but my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield comprehensively destroyed that argument and put forward a credible alternative that would avoid the danger to which the hon. Lady referred.
The Secretary of State said that he had decided that the additional seats would be distributed on the basis of arithmetical fairness. That seems to be neat and tidy, but it is a seriously flawed and misconceived basis. The Bill provides for the setting up of the committees, but it also provides that they will be bound by the criteria in the 1978

Act. That Act was based on the Select Committee's second report on direct elections, which was considered by the House in 1976 and adopted in 1978.
The Select Committee report says that the allocation of seats should be proportionate to population, and that allowance should be made in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for rounding up the numbers and also for the size of areas in those parts of the United Kingdom, and the scattered population. The Government seem to have abandoned that principle for Scotland. If the principle was fair then, it is fair now.
The additional seat for Scotland for which we on this side of the House argue would reduce the number of electors in each constituency to about 55,000. That is neither unmanageable nor unacceptable. An additional seat for Scotland would not compromise the principle of fair allocation.
Additional seats for certain European Community countries, including the United Kingdom, are not the result of a comprehensive, detailed, European-wide study of arithmetical fairness throughout the Community. Even those who sit on the Treasury Bench have not argued that that is the case, and it certainly is not the case. It is the result of a political imperative, following the reunification of Germany. It has resulted in 18 additional seats for the Federal Republic of Germany, seats which are well deserved. We could not allow 17 million people to be disfranchised. Germany was right to want those additional seats, and that is what it achieved. However, the representation will be on the basis that all of the areas of Germany are represented effectively.
Although I do not agree with some of the comments about proportional representation that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), he was right in this regard: if the Secretary of State had based the Bill on an arithmetical exercise, we would have no additional seats whatever. That cannot be the right basis on which to approach this critical issue, and that is another reason why I believe that the Secretary of State's proposals are flawed.
As well as the political imperative, the real objective of the additional seats may be to ensure, understandably, that there is a better balance of voting in the European Parliament, and that we do not allow one member state with additional seats to have an unfair advantage in the European Parliament. At some stage, someone will talk about qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers, although we are not deliberating on that this evening.
The exercise therefore is not about resolving arithmetical anomalies or the size of the constituencies and it never was. Therefore, to use this arithmetical base to exclude Scotland is irrelevant and completely unjustified. If that were the object of the exercise, how could Luxembourg and Denmark be ignored?
I argue strongly that the basis of the Secretary of State's argument is fundamentally flawed. That fundamental mistake permeates the Bill. If the House grants the Bill a Second Reading this evening, it will endorse that fundamental mistake, which the Secretary of State is asking us to endorse.
I believe that the House is faced with simple but very important and critical decisions. We can go along with these unnecessary, unjustified committees, which are answerable to the Secretary of State, abandon vital safeguards to the public interest, simply ignore the tried


and tested Boundary Commission system and ensure that there is no power to have consultation and public inquiries. However, Opposition Members have shown that that is not the way forward if there is the political will. That political will is missing on the Government Front Bench.
I hope that enough has been said this evening to ensure that the Government will rethink, even at this late stage. I hope, therefore, that the House will support the reasoned amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I make not the slightest complaint about the Chair's choice of Opposition Members to speak in the debate. However, may I place on the record the fact that, although the Opposition amendment refers to Scotland, no Scottish Labour Member was called during the debate?
May I also ask formally, through the Chair, whether the Chair will consider the contribution of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who spoke for 38 minutes, as that was the root cause of the trouble? Some of us think that his contribution had nothing to do with the Bill, but had to do with other things. Could that be looked at in the cold light of day?

Madam Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for many years, he will know that there is always a problem in allowing a sufficient number of hon. Members to participate in a debate and in trying to balance all considerations. As to the length of speeches, the hon. Gentleman will also know that there is very little that the Chair can do except in strictly defined circumstances, which do not apply tonight. No doubt the points that he made will be taken on board.

Mr. Graham Allen: This has been a unique experience for me. We have today had a genuine debate with genuine exchanges across the Floor of the House, rather than the normal setpiece speeches followed by a routine vote at the end. There has been give and take and cross-party agreement and disagreement.
I hope that the Home Secretary will ponder carefully on what we have achieved and will think of the possibility of the Government being defeated on our amendment, on the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and even on Third Reading. I hope that the rational and thoughtful discussion that has occurred in the Chamber today—complemented, I understand, by discussions behind the Chair in an equally rational and thoughtful way�žwill produce a measure on which hon. Members of all parties can agree when, or if, we reach the Committee stage.
We take too many aspects of our democracy for granted, such as the right to contest elections with honest boundaries and even the right of all people to vote. Such rights are recent achievements historically. They have been hard won, wrung from reluctant governments by outside pressures.
A democracy must constantly be vigilant to protect and extend those freedoms. That is particularly true given the all-powerful Executive that we have in Britain's centralised state. The threat is even more serious with an Executive grown fat and arrogant after 14 years of the virtually

unchallenged accumulation of power. They think that they can do anything and, in a system without serious democratic checks, they can. The only restraint is self-discipline, and that evaporated a long time ago. That is the background against which the Conservatives have turned the European boundary review into a shambles and an affront to our democratic traditions.
We should today be celebrating the entry into the democratic family of another member. I refer to the present-day unity of Germany, East Germany having joined the community of nations in western Europe. That should be a cause for champagne corks to pop. But what we have in the Bill is a sordid disgrace when compared with the efforts of those people and the liberation and democratisation bid that their society made a couple of years ago.
The Government are seeking to bypass the accepted democratic process of referring matters such as European boundary reviews to the independent and universally respected Boundary Commission. They seek to bypass that process rather than follow a long-standing tradition in this country. If Parliament allows that to happen, we shall be palming off responsibility to the new European parliamentary constituencies committees. It will represent the first use of ad hoc committees for drawing electoral boundaries since legislation was passed in 1944 setting up the Boundary Commissions. The Government are taking democracy back 50 years. It seems that even the institutions of democracy can be tampered with almost to the point of privatisation.
From Labour's point of view, when the time comes it will not be enough merely for us to right that wrong. We shall need to put such central elements of our democracy beyond the whim of this or that Government, whatever their political colour. The Boundary Commissions must be separate and immune from Government interference.
The Home Secretary, perhaps due to inexperience of his Department, may have been led astray a little. Certainly the first job that his Department has given him is to bin a commitment made by the Prime Minister, who said that six extra MEPs would mean fresh boundaries being set across England, Scotland and Wales and that that would be a matter for the Boundary Commissions and not for the Government. That one bites the dust and goes in the bin straightway, in the first week of the new Home Secretary's regime.
The Prime Minister knew what he was doing—at least, in this case. At that time the United Kingdom held the presidency of the Council of Ministers, and the Prime Minister obviously knew that extra seats would be allocated to the United Kingdom. He did not stumble into this; he made a clear commitment that the job would be done by the Boundary Commissions. Then along came the Home Secretary, who tore the commitment up within his first couple of weeks in office.

Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Allen: I am pleased to give way to the hon. Lady, as she was very kind a few moments ago in not pressing her right to speak.

Mrs. Currie: While I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, I should point out that no Member has a right to speak; it is always a privilege.
The hon. Gentleman may have been mistaken when he said a moment ago that this is the first time since 1944 we


shall not have had a proper Boundary Commission procedure. The Library's research paper points out that schedule 2 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, under which the 1979 constituencies were drawn up,
laid down a very much curtailed version of the normal
Boundary Commission procedures to enable the work to be carried out in time for the first elections.
The paper goes on:
These were accepted without modification by the then Government, which laid the necessary European Assembly constituency orders approved in December 1978.
If the Library is right, this has happened before. Indeed, it happened under the last Labour Government.

Mr. Allen: I shall deal later with the hon. Lady's point, which is similar to that that she made in an intervention earlier. When I get to that stage, she may regret having reminded me of it.
The Home Office press release accompanying the Bill stated that the committees would be impartial and independent. When one looks at the Government's record in similar circumstances, it is hard to be reassured. One thinks of local health authorities and of the new police authorities that were announced yesterday—no doubt, to be presented as paragons of impartiality and independence, but more likely to be ad hoc committees composed of the usual crop of well-trusted Tory party appointees and apparatchiks, and staffed by the politically vetted. [Interruption.] Conservative Members groan, but I am afraid that the reality of local health authorities is very much along those lines. For the reality of the police authorities and these committees we shall have to wait. The Government have not yet told us who the members of the committees will be. They gave us four assurances today, which, I am glad to say, will be listed in Hansard. We shall read them with great interest. Even if some members of the committees are seconded from the Boundary Commission, they will he exposed to additional pressures—no doubt some of it political—which may compromise any recommendations they make. If Boundary Commission people are loaned, and if their functions are to be the same as commission functions, why was the job not given to the Boundary Commission in the first place?
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) mentioned previous occasions. Earlier interventions from Conservative Members drew attention to the 1979 undertaking that this would be a one-off arrangement, that never again would there be no Boundary Commission procedure. I suppose that what we have now might, technically, be referred to as a two-off. If we are to have another one-off, just 13 or 14 years after the last one, why does the Bill not make it clear that in future the Boundary Commission itself will be responsible for any such revisions?

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Clause 2 does just that.

Mr. Allen: Is clause 2 a one-off? Perhaps the Minister of State can reassure us.
In our view, the Boundary Commission should do this job, this time and in the future. It is an impartial and well respected body, and it should not be subverted, even for the rather thin reasons being put forward by the Secretary of State.
Today, in our view, the Home Secretary did not at all make the case that the European parliamentary constituency committees will be able to do the job more quickly than the Boundary Commission could.
There is a timetable available and it could be fitted in with the Boundary Commission's own potential for fulfilling the drawing of boundaries. Again, it looks very much as if the Home Secretary, Ianding fairly new to the Department, has been given some advice—no doubt well meaning advice—that the Boundary Commission could not fulfil the task. I believe that it was bad advice and that the Home Secretary accepted advice which his predecessor may have challenged or even overturned, telling the Department to get on with the job. That may not be the new Secretary of State's way of managing his Department.
The European constituency committees lack not only the widely acknowledged independence, integrity and trust enjoyed by the Boundary Commission but its consultative responsibilities. Vital to any boundary-drawing process is the consultation with those who are most affected by boundary changes—the relevant local electorate. The parliamentary Boundary Commissions publish provisional recommendations as part of their review, which means that procedures then exist for local inquiries in the event of objections from an interested local authority or a body of 500 or more electors before the finalisation of the parliamentary boundaries.
No such statutory responsibilities exist for the European constituency committees. It is essential that the inquiries are restored to the proposals. As has been said by members of all parties, 70 per cent. of the provisional recommendations are changed during the process, but the Government are seeking to remove that possibility and the potential number of changes.
Whatever assurances the Government give about providing adequate opportunity for consultation, we shall not be satisfied until they appear in the Bill. If the Home Secretary believes that consultation is a necessary and vital part of the boundary-drawing process, as the Labour party believes, he should include it in the Bill. Britain's democratic heritage should not rely on the devalued and debased currency of Tory ministerial assurances.
It is vital that the time wasted by the Government is not made up at the expense of adequate and proper public consultation on proposed boundary changes. The public deserve the right to be able to respond in exactly the same way as they do when our Westminster boundaries are changed. We would not accept the new procedure for ourselves, and it is not fair, in the traditions of the House, for us to impose it on other elected representatives.
The Home Secretary complains that there is little or no time to institute such detailed inquiries because the European elections are less than a year away, on 9 June 1994. It is hard to muster any sympathy for him as it is his Government's fault that they cannot manage their business properly. However, the temptation once again to let the Government swing because of their inadequacies and incompetence must be tempered by the fact that it is our constituents—the constituents of Members of the European Parliament—who will suffer unless we get the Bill right.
I am going to suggest to the Minister of State a way forward. I ask him, now or when he replies to the debate, to undertake to appoint someone who will meet a representative appointed by the Labour party—no doubt other parties too will wish to be involved—so that they can


discuss together how the timetable can be amended to accommodate the usual process of public inquiry on boundary redistribution. That is the only satisfactory way to meet the objectives of all parties and ensure that a vital element is not excluded from the procedure. If the Minister wishes to respond to that offer, I shall be pleased to give way to him.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I shall respond now so that the point is not lost in some of the other remarks that I will make. The Government will be pleased to take up the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that a representative of the Opposition and an official of the Home Secretary should meet to consider the timetable proposed—about which I shall say something later—and examine it very carefully. I think that we will find that the timetable is as pressing as we have said, and as the Home Secretary explained.
We would like as much consultation as possible, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends any indication that the Government believe that it is possible to speed up the timetable. If the respresentatives of the Opposition can persuade us otherwise, we will be interested in being so persuaded. I hope that the representatives of the Opposition will be equally open-minded.

Mr. Allen: If the Minister is putting forward the proposal with an open mind, it is something that we shall be very pleased to take up. I hope that a representative, or several representatives, of the Opposition can make such representations. We believe that there is leeway in the timetable set by the Government, and time for us to insert in it, to the satisfaction of all parties, a period during which a genuine public inquiry procedure could be conducted without compromising that timetable.

Mrs. Ewing: For clarification, how many representatives of the Opposition parties will be involved? Different views must he respected, and I would be grateful if he could say whether one representative from the minority parties will be selected, or whether all the minority parties will be represented.

Mr. Allen: I hope that the hon. Lady will take it from me on trust that we are attempting to make the Bill better. We are trying to convince the Government that there is provision in their timetable for a full public inquiry. We will consult as widely as possible and, through the usual channels, arrive at a means of ensuring proper contact with the Government. I cannot make up policy on the hoof, but I would be pleased if the hon. Lady and her colleagues considered the matter through the usual channels.
If the Secretary of State and his Ministers are open minded, the Bill can be improved. We can ensure that a public consultation period and a public inquiry procedure is restored to the Bill. If we achieve nothing else, we will have done a serious night's work if the Government are prepared to respond to that proposal—before the Committee stage, I hope.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman knows what is contained in the Bill. This is a Second Reading debate, so will he come clean and tell us how the Opposition will vote

tonight? In that way, all the rhetoric and fast bowling to which he is subjecting the Government will be seen in practice in the Lobby.

Mr. Allen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have just opened my innings. I am sure that he will be even more interested in what the Minister says. Having made the sort of speech that he did this evening, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be equally behind any effort to restore the public inquiry to the British democratic tradition, as it applies to the European parliamentary elections.
The Government have had eight long months since the Edinburgh conference to bring forward proposals. We have very little sympathy with the Home Secretary when he bleats about the pressure of time because the first Bill that he has brought forward since he took that office is shoddy and slap-dash. If the Government had introduced the Bill in January, as they should have done, it would have allowed a reasonable period for boundaries to be drawn. The Government appear to have adopted a Rolf Harris approach to drawing boundaries; they have done it in the shortest possible time, in the vague hope that if one stands well back the final product will at least be a little bit recognisable.
We all know why the Government have taken so long to bring forward the proposals. They were afraid of their party within the party—the party represented by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I am sure that many of his colleagues enjoyed his long speech—it brought back memories of the Maastricht debate for many people.
The Europhobes have their chance to develop beyond esoteric proceduralism tonight and in Committee. They centre their Maastricht case on defending British democracy. Nothing requires a stouter defence than our right to vote on fair boundaries drawn up by an impartial Boundary Commission. In Committee, we will see whether their commitment is to defending our democracy or something else. They must define democracy more widely than simply as the right of a Conservative Government to tell a Conservative Parliament what to do.
We know the reputed views of the Secretary of State on matters European. It was sad to hear him say that he was prepared to veto extra seats for other European nations, especially the new Germany. Everyone in Europe would lose seats if the Secretary of State's suicidal plan went forward along those lines. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating him on the way in which he managed to talk with apparent enthusiasm for European democracy while simultaneously grinding his teeth. The strength of his performance does not excuse the way in which he and his colleagues are willing to play internal party politics with our electoral process.
In conclusion, when power is prized over democracy, sidestepping the Boundary Commission slips seamlessly into raising funds from dubious sources to fight elections, repaying donors with titles and peerages and recurring allegations of vote stealing from the elderly, the infirm and others, in St. Ives last year and Brighton this year. The difference is that, whereas those sleazy activities took place privately or on a party political basis, Parliament is being asked to authorise and to collaborate with the Conservative abuse of democracy.
The record shows that, for the Conservatives, our democracy is simply a process to be manipulated, distorted and reshaped for the benefit of the Conservative party. The


Parliament that it controls is being drawn into the web. It will drag Parliament further into disrepute and hasten the day that fundamental reform is enacted to return both our Parliament and our democracy to a position worthy of public respect.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) characteristically talked a great deal of extravagant nonsense about the Bill and a number of other matters. He does that accidentally because he does not understand the debate, as was clearly evinced when he accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary of being prepared to veto extra seats for the United Kingdom and others. My right hon. and learned Friend most certainly did not say that. If the hon. Gentleman inspects the record—if he is capable of reading—he will see that that is simply not the case.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to secure extra seats for the United Kingdom and others. From time to time, the hon. Gentleman deviated to make one or two sensible points, to one of which I gave him an answer. I shall come hack to the other points later. Before I take up the points made by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, I shall set out once again why we have the Bill now and why it has taken the form that it does. Those two simple matters were at times heavily overlaid by the range of issues that were properly raised, and by the vigour with which they were sometimes addressed.
The Bill has been introduced, not as a result of Maastricht or of any changes in the power or scope of the European Parliament, but because Germany has reunited, as the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) reminded us. It was agreed at the Edinburgh summit under the United Kingdom presidency that Germany should have 18 more seats to acknowledge—sparingly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) intervened to say—the 17 million extra voters that it acquired with East Germany. At the same time, the United Kingdom, France and Italy secured six more seats each, while smaller countries gained fewer or none.
The result is that the distribution of seats between the member countries will reflect a little more accurately the size of their electorates. That point was missed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in his interesting speech, and is one from which the right hon. Member for Strangford will take, to judge from his remarks, a morsel of comfort.
We have thought long and carefully about how the United Kingdom's extra seats should be distributed between the countries of the Union. The Home Secretary explained in his opening speech that, at present, the average size of a European Parliament electorate in England is larger than in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, but slightly smaller than in Wales.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister explain why that was not thought of before? Scottish Members will have to explain the promise made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in introducing the White Paper "Taking Stock" and repeated in St. Andrews in November 1992. The promise may have been unwise and I was surprised that the Secretary of State

made it, but nevertheless it was made. Scottish Members are entitled to an explanation of why it has not been honoured.

Mr. Lloyd: The Secretary of State for Scotland must explain his own paper, which I have not read. I have stated that there was a great deal of discussion about the fairest way to distribute the extra seats. We decided that it was to take the average sizes of the electorates in the constituencies of the countries of the United Kingdom and distribute the seats accordingly. That is why there is an extra seat for Wales, the area of the country with the largest average electorate at the moment. It is right that the seat should go to Wales.

Mr. Dalyell: All of that was obvious in 1992. I am not challenging what the Minister is saying. I am asking him to help Scottish Members by telling us how we can explain away the extraordinary promises of the Secretary of State. Those promises were made at a time when he wanted to ingratiate himself with Scotland.

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot answer for the Secretary of State for Scotland. I did not read that particular paper. I can answer that the Government's decision was to distribute the seats according to the average sizes of electorate in each country.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister recall the point that I made earlier? When the original decision was taken that the United Kingdom should be allocated either 81 or 82 seats in advance of the first direct elections, the argument for that number of seats was won on the basis that Scotland should have 10 seats and Wales should have five. Wales has now been brought up to five seats, while Scotland remains with only eight. It seems almost as if negotiations have taken place and arguments have been put forward that now disadvantage the people of Scotland. Those arguments originally advantaged the people of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: That is nonsense. Scotland is not being disadvantaged. Wales was being disadvantaged, which is why the extra seat has gone to Wales. It will result in Wales, such is its small size, switching from being the country with the highest average electorate per Euro constituency to the lowest. With a small population, a difference of one seat takes it from top to bottom.
I understand why the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and other Scottish Members are disappointed that there is no extra seat for Scotland. I understand perfectly why Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen—I was going to say with so many Scottish Members behind them, but Scottish Members are not here—feel obliged to demonstrate their outrage at the absence of a new seat for Scotland, but the arithmetic and simple honesty ought to compel Opposition Members to admit privately to themselves, even if they cannot do so publicly, that another seat for Scotland cannot be justified.
Even with five extra seats, the average English European constituency will still have 4 per cent. more electors than the average Scottish constituency. To give one more seat to Scotland and take one away from England would increase that disparity still further to 16 per cent.

Mrs. Currie: Is not at least part of the answer that those of us who represent English constituencies have made a


fuss about it? We are pleased that the Government have heard. Is it not a matter of fact that, of the 63 English European constituencies, 60 have electorates of more than 500,000, but of the eight Scottish constituencies, half have electorates of fewer than 500,000?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend's statistics are correct, but the first part of her remarks was not. It was not a matter of pressure and making representations. The Government determined what was objectively the fairest way of distributing the seats.
I have listened with care almost all evening and, apart from one argument to which I shall return, I have not heard any convincing reasons why Scotland should be given even more generous representation in the European Parliament than England. The one argument that requires an answer is that Scotland must have an extra seat because one of its constituencies—Highlands and Islands—is extremely large in area. However, although its area is indeed vast, it has one of the smallest European electorates in the United Kingdom. Its electorate is 327,000, compared with the average of 490,000 for Scotland as a whole.
Of course, electoral law makes some allowance for sparseness of population. Highlands and Islands has obviously benefited from that discretion, but I doubt whether, if Scotland had an extra seat, the Boundary Commission or any informal committee operating under the same guidelines would feel able to increase the disparity between the electorates in Highlands and Islands and the rest of the Scottish seats sufficiently to make much difference. The extra seat would surely have to be used mainly to reduce in terms of number of electors the average size of seats in highly populated areas of Scotland.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister has been asked to make an apology on behalf of Scottish Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Scotland, who have not even bothered to turn up for the debate. The Secretary of State gave at least two promises—one in his document "Taking Stock" and one in his speech at St. Andrews—that Scotland would achieve better representation. Does the Minister accept that geography has a great deal to do with the matter and that the Highlands and Islands seat is bigger than Belgium? Are we to believe that the Government considered merely figures and not communities, geography or proper representation for Scotland?

Mr. Lloyd: According to the rules that we have, the seat would not go to the highlands and islands. The position is different, particularly because Opposition Members have pleaded that we should stick absolutely and completely to the traditional Boundary Commission practices and rules. Highlands and Islands is, indeed, large territorially, but it has a small population. The major determining factor which Boundary Commissions are supposed to take into account is population. That is the reason for the discrepancy. The reason is not whether or not Scotland has an extra seat.
Even if it was right—I do not accept that it is—to distribute the seats in such a way as to give Scotland more than the United Kingdom arithmetic can justify, I do not believe that it would help in resolving anxieties, which I understand, caused by the sheer geographical spread of the

Highlands and Islands constituency or the difficulties created for the mother-in-law of the hon. Member for Moray. As the hon. Lady said, her mother-in-law is as capable of managing that seat as any member, but its size gives her added difficulties.
The hon. Lady asked whether we would consider constituencies in Scotland and the rest of the country on a geographical basis. I have some sympathy with that, but I do not know how it can be done. I know that it cannot be done under the present rules. During last year's debates on the parliamentary Boundary Commission changes, I said that after this coming review and the consequent review of European boundaries, we should need to reconsider the rules under which commissions work. By that I did not mean just the Government; I meant that there would be consultation with other parties. As I said before, we can do that only when we come to consider the rules under which boundaries are reviewed. It cannot be done properly and fairly now. Perhaps we could have given an extra seat to Scotland, but it would not have resolved the real problem of the geographical size of that constituency in particular.

Mr. Rowe: May I seek reassurance on one other point? Several of my constituents in Kent are anxious because it appears that with the new seats we are likely to be pushed out of Kent and to include part of Sussex. That appears to have a knock-on effect on domestic parliamentary boundaries. Can my hon. Friend assure us that the two are not connected in that way?

Mr. Lloyd: There is not a knock-on effect to domestic parliamentary constituency boundaries. Euroconstituencies must be made from the building blocks of domestic parliamentary constituencies. That is why the law requires that after a review of domestic parliamentary boundaries there must be a consequent review of Euro-boundaries to make sure that the latter are still made up of the building blocks of the ordinary parliamentary constituencies.
The call for an extra seat for Scotland on the basis of the highlands and islands difficulty came particularly unconvincingly from Liberal Democrats, especially the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). He and his party want the extra six Members to be elected on the additional list basis. He lambasted the Government for not seizing an opportunity to move to proportional representation. If we did so, that would leave constituency boundaries, not merely in Scotland but everywhere else, exactly as they are at present.

Mr. Maclennan: It is uncharacteristic of the Minister, but obviously he did not listen to me. I made it plain that the list would operate in Scotland, Wales and England, if that was how the distribution had to be made.

Mr. Lloyd: If that were so for the additional seats, it would leave the existing directly elected constituency boundaries as they are, in which case the hon. Gentleman would not reduce the size of the Highlands and Islands constituency. That is my point to him.
The Government have always made it clear that they see in proportional representation of any variety no improvement on our traditional, well-tried system of first past the post and strong, clear constituency links for every elected Member.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lloyd: I will give way later.
Even if we thought otherwise, which we do not, proceeding to elect six additional Members on the list basis is not, as the Liberal Democrat party thinks, a quick and easily organised alternative. It would require much debate. What kind of list? Would it cover the whole of the United Kingdom or each constituent country, as the nationalists have repeatedly said they would like to see? It is difficult to have additional seats and directly elected constituencies in the small constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Who would draw up the list? As the Home Secretary remarked in his opening speech, if we embark on that route we shall still be arguing the issue on the day the elections are due to be held.
I must bypass the De Gucht report and answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). As I indicated from a sedentary position during the debate, I can give him the four assurances that he asked for. The Opposition will be consulted on the members of the committees. The Boundary Commission members will be appointed, wherever possible, if they are willing and have time to do so. Two have already said that they believe they will have time. The secretariat will be the same, although I cannot say whether it will be temporarily expanded.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be the Boundary Commission in all but name. Yes, that is our objective as far as it is possible in the time. However, it cannot be exactly so and a major issue in this debate has been how far consultation and local inquiries can be held. I do not believe that it is possible to have local inquiries in the traditional manner. The hon. Gentleman said that that was simply assertion and believes that we can. I can only counter his assertion with another, and the right hon. Member for Strangford asked me to spell it out.
The timetable is extremely tight. Political parties and administrators need to know where the new boundaries are to be drawn not later than the end of November. Representatives of the political parties are likely to want discussion meetings with the committees before they start work. None the less, publication of provisional recommendations at the beginning of August remains a possible, though optimistic, target. So far, the timetables of the hon. Member for Sedgefield and the Home Secretary are similar. However, there would be strong criticism if insufficient time were allowed for representation. Many people will be away on holiday in August and it will be difficult for local councils to meet to discuss proposals. In the past, political parties strongly urged the Boundary Commission not to publish proposals in August. That all points to a closing date no earlier than mid September.
The preparation and holding of public inquiries are long processes. Representations must be analysed and briefs prepared for the person presiding over the inquiry. As the hon. Member for Sedgefield said, it could reasonably be expected that up to 10 inquiries may be needed. In preparing his report to the relevant committee, the inquiry chairman would need a verbatim transcript of the proceedings. Reports take some weeks to prepare and submit. The committees would then need to consider the reports and representations, reach final decisions and prepare their own reports. We believe that, at best, that will take six or seven weeks longer than the hon. Gentleman suggested.
As I said to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, if the hon. Member for Sedgefield wishes to appoint a representative, the Home Secretary will want to appoint an expert to sit down and go through the timetable. We believe that our timetable is realistic and that the timetable of the hon. Member for Sedgefield is unrealistic, but we shall look at it open mindedly because we want as much opportunity for review and representation as possible, as does the hon. Gentleman. If we are shown to be wrong we shall adopt an alternative procedure. Although I do not think that that will be the case, we should be happy to talk it through. [Interruption.] If it is feasible, there can be public inquiries. We do not want to rule them out. In 1978–79 the Labour Government, although they had twice as long to prepare for the European elections, had to rule out local inquiries, just as we are doing now.
The Bill is simple and fair. It provides the United Kingdom with six extra seats that are distributed as fairly as possible. It is fair to all parts of the United Kingdom and what Opposition Members suggest would certainly be unfair to England.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 300.

Division No. 312]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Coffey, Ann


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cohen, Harry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Connarty, Michael


Allen, Graham
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Alton, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Armstrong, Hilary
Corston, Ms Jean


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cousins, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob


Austin-Walker, John
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Barnes, Harry
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Dalyell, Tam

 Battle, John
Darling, Alistair


Bayley, Hugh
Davidson, Ian


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Denham, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dewar, Donald


Benton, Joe
Dixon, Don


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Frank


Berry, Dr. Roger
Donohoe, Brian H.


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blair, Tony
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blunkett, David
Eagle, Ms Angela


Boateng, Paul
Eastham, Ken


Boyes, Roland
Enright, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Etherington, Bill


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fatchett, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Faulds, Andrew


Burden, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Byers, Stephen
Fisher, Mark


Caborn, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fyfe, Maria


Cann, Jamie
Galbraith, Sam


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Galloway, George


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gapes, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Garrett, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
George, Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gerrard, Neil


Clelland, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Godman, Dr Norman A.






Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gould, Bryan
Mowlam, Marjorie


Graham, Thomas
Mudie, George


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Murphy, Paul


Grocott, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gunnell, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hain, Peter
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hall, Mike
O'Hara, Edward


Hanson, David
Olner, William


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pendry, Tom


Harvey, Nick
Pickthall, Colin


Hattersley. Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter L.


Henderson, Doug
Pope, Greg


Heppell, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoey, Kate
Prescott, John


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Primarolo, Dawn


Home Robertson, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hood, Jimmy
Radice, Giles


Hoon, Geoffrey
Randall, Stuart


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Raynsford, Nick


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rendel, David


Hoyle, Doug
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hutton, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Illsley, Eric
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Ingram, Adam
Rogers, Allan


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rooker, Jeff


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rooney, Terry


Jamieson, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Janner, Greville
Rowlands, Ted


Johnston, Sir Russell
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Short, Clare


Jowell, Tessa
Simpson, Alan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Keen, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S  F'sbury)


Khabra, Piara S.
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Snape, Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Soley, Clive


Leighton, Ron
Spearing, Nigel


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lewis, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Livingstone, Ken
Stevenson, George


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Loyden, Eddie
Straw, Jack


Lynne, Ms Liz
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McAllion, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McAvoy, Thomas
Tipping, Paddy


Macdonald, Calum
Turner, Dennis


McFall, John
Tyler, Paul


McLeish, Henry
Vaz, Keith


Maclennan, Robert
Wallace, James


McMaster, Gordon
Walley, Joan


McWilliam, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower) 

Madden, Max
Wareing, Robert N


Mahon, Alice
Watson, Mike


Mandelson, Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Marek, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wilson, Brian


Maxton, John
Winnick, David


Meacher, Michael
Wise, Audrey


Meale, Alan
Worthington, Tony


Michael, Alun
Wray, Jimmy


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wright, Dr Tony


Milburn, Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Miller, Andrew



Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. John Spellar and 


Morley, Elliot
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dykes, Hugh


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Amess, David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Ancram, Michael
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evennett, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Faber, David


Ashby, David
Fabricant, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkins, Robert
Fishburn, Dudley


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bates, Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Beggs, Roy
French, Douglas


Bellingham, Henry
Fry, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gillan, Cheryl


Body, Sir Richard
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Booth, Hartley
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M. (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hannam, Sir John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Andrew 

Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butcher, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Butterfill, John
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heald, Oliver


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Robert


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clappison, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Horam, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coe, Sebastian
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Congdon, David
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Conway, Derek
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jenkin, Bernard


Curry, David (Skipton  Ripon)
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilyrn (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, Sir James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)






Knox, Sir David
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sackville, Tom


Legg, Barry
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Leigh, Edward
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Lord, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Luff, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

 MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


MacKay, Andrew
Soames, Nicholas


Maclean, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Maginnis, Ken
Spring, Richard


Major, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


Malone, Gerald
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mans, Keith
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marlow, Tony
Stephen, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stern, Michael


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Allan


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Streeter, Gary


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sumberg, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thomason, Roy


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Needham, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tredinnick, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trend, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Trimble, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steve
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wells, Bowen


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Pickles, Eric
Whitney, Ray


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whittingdale, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Richards, Rod
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham
Yeo, Tim


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robathan, Andrew



Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. David Lightbown, and


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Sydney Chapman

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 51.

Division No. 313]
[10.18 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Amess, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Ancram, Michael
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arbuthnot, James
Evennett, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Faber, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fabricant, Michael


Ashby, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fishburn, Dudley


Atkins, Robert
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forth, Eric


Baldry, Tony
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bates, Michael
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Batiste, Spencer
French, Douglas


Bellingham, Henry
Fry, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gamier, Edward


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gillan, Cheryl


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Booth, Hartley
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hague, William


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brown, M. (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, Sir John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butcher, John
Harris, David


Butler, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hendry, Charles


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Robert


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jack, Michael


Curry, David (Skipton  Ripon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Eggar, Tim
Knox, Sir David


Elletson, Harold
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)






Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Pawsey, James


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Pickles, Eric


Legg, Barry
Porter, David (Waveney)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Powell, William (Corby)


Lidington, David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Lightbown, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Richards, Rod


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Riddick, Graham


Lord, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Luff, Peter
Robathan, Andrew


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


MacKay, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Maclean, David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Madel, David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Maginnis, Ken
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Major, Rt Hon John
Sackville, Tom


Malone, Gerald
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Mans, Keith
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Marland, Paul
Shaw, David (Dover)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Shersby, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sims, Roger


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Merchant, Piers
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Milligan, Stephen
Soames, Nicholas


Mills, Iain
Spencer, Sir Derek


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Spink, Dr Robert


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Spring, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Sproat, Iain


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Moss, Malcolm
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Needham, Richard
Steen, Anthony


Nelson, Anthony
Stephen, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stern, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Allan


Nicholls, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Sweeney, Walter


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Paice, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter





Townend, John (Bridlington)
Watts, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wells, Bowen


Tracey, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Tredinnick, David
Whitney, Ray


Trend, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Trimble, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trotter, Neville
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Twinn, Dr Ian
Willetts, David


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wolfson, Mark


Viggers, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Yeo, Tim


Walden, George
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Derek Conway.


Waterson, Nigel





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Johnston, Sir Russell


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Alton, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry
Livingstone, Ken


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Lynne, Ms Liz


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Macdonald,.Calum


Bennett, Andrew F.
Maclennan, Robert


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Mahon, Alice


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Marek, Dr John


Cann, Jamie
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Pickthall, Colin


Cohen, Harry
Rendel, David


Connarty, Michael
Salmond, Alex


Corbyn, Jeremy
Skinner, Dennis


Davidson, Ian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Flynn, Paul
Tyler, Paul


Foster, Don (Bath)
Wallace, James


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wise, Audrey


Gordon, Mildred Wray, Jimmy


Graham, Thomas



Gunnell, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Harvey, Nick
Mr. Bob Cryer and.


Hood, Jimmy
 Mr. Eddie Loyden


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Question according agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be commited to a Committee of the whole House.�ž[Mr.Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — European Parliamentary Elections Bill [Money]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of remuneration and allowances to the members of a European Parliamentary Constituencies Committee established by the Act.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that we may speak to the money resolution?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is correct.

Sir Russell Johnston: We have witnessed an extraordinary exhibition by Labour Members, who had every opportunity to defeat the Government, but turned it down. Any more from them about how easy it would be to do that—[Interruption.]—is unnecessary. Why should we not wish to support the money——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The money resolution is very narrow and is about the remuneration of the members of a committee. It is not about political parties.

Sir Russell Johnston: Is it sufficiently narrow for me to say that the money resolution should not be passed? I would not wish to see the House support a motion which would permit a system of election that is transparently unfair and unjust to millions of people in Britain. I listened with astonishment to the Minister's reply. He spent a great deal of time on the details but ignored the plain fact that the European Parliament does not produce a government, as we do, but exists to provide advice within the institutions of the European Community. So the traditional arguments against having a fair electoral——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now going very wide of the mark.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I trust that the Minister will reply to this debate because the money resolution is part of the pattern of procedure and must have the authority of the House. Many hon. Members are anxious to hear the Minister, but if he is not prepared to give an outline of the purpose of the measure, we may decide to call a Division, just to emphasise the point. We want to know what the cost of the commission will be because——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have explained that the money resolution is very narrow—[Interruption.]—and, in any event, it is difficult for me to ascertain what the hon. Member is saying if I cannot hear him. The House must now quieten down.

Mr. Cryer: I have questions to ask about the costs of this legislation. The issue of proportional representation has been raised. I would be out of order in discussing that. On the other hand, the Minister will want to make it clear that the cost of the legislation is the absolute minimum and

that the introduction of a daft system of proportional representation would have been a great deal more costly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to reply.

Mr. James Wallace: I understand that the purpose of the money resolution is to authorise payments from public funds for the remuneration and allowances of the members of these specious committees, whose purpose is to create the six new European parliamentary constituencies.
My first objection to the provision of any money whatsoever for this purpose is that the exercise would be unnecessary if there were a system of proportional representation. Such a system would remove any need for the carving up of constituencies. Thus, this is a waste of valuable funds.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Regardless of the cost, has the hon. Gentleman failed to understand that the system he is proposing is being increasingly rejected throughout Europe? It is bogus, as is shown by the fact that it has almost been accepted by the Labour party as a final solution for lost causes.

Mr. Wallace: I cannot accept that. I shall be interested to hear to what places the hon. Gentleman is referring. If he is thinking about Italy, let met tell him that the system being proposed there is far more democratic than anything we have in this country.
My second point is that the committees for which we are being asked to approve funds will not be allowed to look at the European constituencies for the nation of Scotland. By no stretch of the imagination could that be regarded as anything but a travesty. It is a total waste of money to set up committees that will ignore a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Why should Scottish taxpayers have to pay for these specious, spurious bodies?
I live in the European constituency of the Highlands and Islands, whose northernmost extremity is further north than the southern tip of Greenland, and whose southernmost extremity—the Mull of Kintyre, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie)—is further south than Berwick-upon-Tweed. It is a massive constituency. If the Bill gave Scotland not only its fair share of Members but also constituencies of a more manageable size, there might be some justification for the committee funds that the House is now being asked to approve. As it is, there is no provision for an examination of Scotland. That is another reason for not asking the taxpayers for this money.
The third point is that we are to have committees rather than boundary commissions. During both Divisions tonight, Labour Members were conspicuous by their absence.[Interruption.]

Mr.Dennis Skinner: We are not having that.

Mr. Wallace: Not all of them. If they had all taken part, the Bill could have been defeated. One must assume that they are being bought off, that they have been told that these gerrymandering committees will give them some-thing. It is totally contrary to the traditions of this country that such committees should be set up, that we should eschew the normal procedure of reference to a boundary commission, with all the safeguards of proper published reports and proper opportunities for consultation and


public inquiry. Instead of the inherent independence of a boundary commission, we are moving to more quangos, set up by the Government with the agreement of the Labour party. This is so inconsistent with our democratic conditions that Parliament should not be asked to approve the expenditure of taxpayers' money. This is not the Government's money or our money. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am glad that hon. Members are catching on. Why should we be asked to approve the expenditure of taxpayers' money to set up gerrymandering committees for the purpose of appeasing members of the Tory and Labour parties?

Mr. Simon Hughes: For years the House has been asked to spend money by passing money resolutions after Bills have gained a Second Reading and often on ideas from the Conservative party which have wasted billions of pounds. One of the latest examples of what the Conservatives called a democratic institution was the poll tax. The relevant legislation received a Second Reading and through the money resolution Conservative Members, who represent a minority of people in the country, spent millions of pounds on a system which was wholly discredited from the beginning and which had to be reversed.
We are now being asked to do something more serious. If the money resolution is passed, we shall be authorising an electoral system that is illegal under European law—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish; it is likely that the system will have to be reversed in due course. It will discredit the United Kingdom in the eyes of our neighbours and partners in the European Community.
If we pass the money resolution, we shall be distorting democracy not only in this country—that is bad enough because we are already a laughing stock to the world's new democracies—[Interruption.]When the Government-in-waiting in South Africa travel the world to study democracies on which they could model the constitution of the new South Africa, the one place they do not come to is here. They do not come here because we have a discredited democracy. All other countries, including Italy—I address this in particular to the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor)—have far more representative democracies than we have. The hon. Gentleman's ignorance is such that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might be helpful if the House would quieten down and if the hon. Gentleman returned to money.

Mr. Hughes: In many respects and on many other subjects, the hon. Member for Esher is well informed, but his ignorance on this subject is such that he thinks that the money resolution will authorise a system that is more democratic than any in the European Community. I challenge him to get an independent assessment by any professor of electoral law—[Interruption.]The Conservatives are unwilling to do so. They are unwilling to test what they call democracy—for which we are paying. The Conservatives are not paying—they are asking the people to pay.
We shall be distorting democracy not only at home but in the whole of Europe. Next year, the European

Parliament will not be democratic or representative because we shall have perverted the course of European democracy. Yet we are meant to be the founders of democracy and we call this the mother of Parliaments.
We are talking about my money—the people's money—and I am blowed if I will authorise the expenditure of my money by allowing a distorted, discredited Government, who were elected by a minority of the people, to push this resolution through. I sincerely hope that, with the help of the Labour party—[Interruption.]Let me correct myself. Those on the Labour Front Bench and the Labour leadership—but unsupported by some of that party's members—will be far more culpable of keeping the Tories in power than they accused us of being in October in passing the Bill and, as a result, condoning an electoral system for next year which may yet be taken through the courts. Even if that does not happen, and even if the Bill is not defeated in Committee next week or the week after, it will produce a result next year which will ensure that Britain, alone of the 12 member states, is the unrepresentative, undemocratic partner in Europe.
Our reputation in Europe for wasting money and being undemocratic is already bad enough. It is a sad day when the new Home Secretary and all his colleagues are willing to try to make cosy deals with those who are otherwise considered to be their opponents on all policies. The deal would enable the Government to spend money on setting up a quango, all of those members will be unelected appointees of the Secretary of State. They will not represent the spectrum of opinion.
We have not heard from the Minister how much money will be spent. If the Government get authority from Parliament to spend that money, because they manage to push their minority through the Lobby, when will it be paid back? If our electoral system is shown to be unfair and unreasonable, will the Government pay the money back? Oh no—as on previous occasions when the Government have pushed through Bills with money resolutions, the people of Britain will pay. The Government, their Ministers or even the civil servants will not pay it—only the people.
I want to say one last thing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I could be encouraged to go on for another half an hour. About 20 years ago, I spent one year at the College of Europe with people from 27 other countries. We were trying to build a new democratic Europe. We had difficulty enough then trying to persuade our colleagues that we were serious about that concept. Twenty years later, despite the pretence of the Prime Minister when he said that we are at the centre of Europe, we go on distorting the electoral system and discrediting our country. That behaviour will ensure that the United Kingdom, of all the member states, is the least democratic.
I want to make it clear that it is not the Liberal Democrats who have countenanced the scandal, but the two largest political parties. We shall go on fighting and, sooner rather than later, democracy will come not just to the European Parliament, but to this Parliament—and it will be achieved at a far cheaper price than that set in the money resolution, which will be paid in silver and pounds and is the price of democracy lost and given away by a discredited Government and a deeply discredited official Opposition.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I have been inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to ask the Minister some penetrating questions.
The financial memorandum makes it clear that the cost resulting from the Bill will be £250,000 in 1993–94. Discussions have gone on all day in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster about what negotiations have been held between the two Front-Bench teams. I was not privy to them but they must have related, either directly or indirectly, to the costs of the Bill.
We are entitled to ask some questions about the money allocated. If the Government had chosen another means to redistribute the reservoir of six European Parliament seats, that could have been done at no additional cost. A well-established apparatus for that purpose is available to the Government, but they chose to eschew it. As a result, an extra bill of £250,000 has been put on the taxpayer; that is incontrovertible. The Government have incurred that charge and it is up to them to justify it.
The Minister is duty-bound to give us more details about how the money is made up, how the expenses and allowances will be arrived at, what the precedents are for establishing what sums of money are paid and for what specific and detailed purposes and how the Government will select the chairman and members of the parliamentary constituency committees.

Mr. Wallace: Has my hon. Friend considered the possibility that, in order to perform the job properly, those who are appointed to this doubtful committee might have to travel extensively throughout England and Wales so that they will know the areas that they are talking about? Does he foresee a substantial amount being incurred in travel expenses and some freebie joy-rides, which would not be needed if we had proportional representation?

Mr. Kirkwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—that was my next point. The Minister must know how costly such visits will be. Have per diem allowances been made for the chairman and the members of the parliamentary constituency committees? All those matters are vital. I do not think that there are any precedents for such an operation. We are entitled to know the exact amount of the expenses and how they are arrived at.
Part I of the schedule to the Bill says:
4. The Secretary of State shall pay to the members of a Committee (including the Chairman) such remuneration and allowances as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine.
Does that mean that the House will not have the right to say how the expenses of this operation are set up? Are there any statutory instruments and legislation that will bring back to the House, either by a negative or affirmative procedure, the amounts of money that are spent and the way in which they were deployed? It will be a disgrace if that does not happen.
The committees are unnecessary. Today, there have been all sorts of private talks between the two Front Benches. I do not know what accommodations have been reached or how extensive they may have been. How can we possibly scrutinise the results of the negotiations unless negative and affirmative orders are tabled in the House before the money is properly disbursed so that we can

make judgments? There is a conspiracy between the two Front Benches. It is unconscionable that we have not been given any more details.

Mr. David Rendel: As I have not yet been given an office in the House, I should like to know where the accommodation for these committees will he.

Mr. Kirkwood: Over the past fortnight, my hon. Friend has been coming to me at half-hour intervals asking for an office in this place. We have not been able to find him one, although we have tried. Somehow, the usual channels have not been able to find him accommodation. I bet that accommodation is found for the chairman and members of these committees to enable them to do their work. Why cannot the Government find an office in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster for my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel)?
There are some legitimate and detailed questions that the Minister must answer. Never mind the high politics about the need for proportional representation and getting a much more democratic and open Europe. All those matters are out of order. I do not want to stray too much into the realms of proportional representation and the need to get a fair system or I will be ruled out of order. However, we need to know why this money, unnecessary as it is, must be spent and why Parliament will not have a chance to scrutinise the details of how it will be deployed.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I have a question that arises when we take what the Minister said in conjunction with the money resolution. What undertakings have been given to potential members of the committees about the payment of allowances and remuneration to them from the money to be voted in this resolution? In his closing remarks in the main debate, the Minister of State said that contact had been made with several people who are prepared to serve as members of the committee. Some of the boundary commissioners did not have time to serve, but others, miraculously, had the time.
The Minister then said that it was possible that a draft report would be published by 1 August. He was not certain. It appears to me, and it must have occurred to others, because the matter was referred to in one of the amendments to the Second Reading motion, that some undertaking must have been given to the commissioners that if they started work before the Bill had completed its progress, they would nevertheless be paid in due course for the work that they had done from the moneys that are the subject of the money resolution. The Minister nods. He has already given undertakings to people that they will be paid money which we have not yet voted. The Bill on the basis of which they would be paid has not yet passed through Parliament.
The Bill is likely to have a long Committee stage going into many days. The Committee stage may not have finished by 1 August. It may well go into the spill-over session. It is assumed that the commissioners will turn in day after day at some princely per diem allowance on an undertaking which the Minister has given that they will get their money in due course. I have news for them. They may never get their money. That is unless Major-General Wyldbore-Smith or one of those other remarkable characters has pots of gold still undiscovered from which


they will be paid. We will then know that the project is not a public project but a Tory party project. Indeed, the Labour party may be willing to subscribe.
I hope that neither the Bill nor the money resolution will be passed. If they are not, the commissioners will find that they have spent a great deal of time doing the Government's bidding for no money, unless it is privately subscribed by the two parties who hope to profit politically from the deal. I am amazed that the Minister has made it clear, by nods of his head, that he has given such an undertaking to the people whom he has invited to serve as pseudo-members of a so far non-existent committee.
We had better tell the commissioners that they may never see the colour of this money. They may never see Howard's shilling, which is what it will become. If by any miracle they get Howard's shilling or Blair's florin or whatever it is, they will have discredited themselves by becoming involved in a partisan exercise. I say to the distinguished people who have taken part in the work of the Boundary Commission that they should steer well clear of this. It must be obvious that this is a seedy enterprise from the way in which the money side is being organised, with promises and undertakings such as, "We'll see you all right. We haven't got the Bill through yet but don't worry, we'll see that you get your money."
Any of the distinguished people who previously served Britain well on Boundary Commissions would be ill-advised to have anything to do with the procedures set out in the Bill.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I wish to take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). In the first line of the explanatory and financial memorandum, the great city of Edinburgh is mentioned. I want to know what the great city of Edinburgh and, indeed, the great country and nation of Scotland will get out of the £250,000 that we are being asked to vote. It seems to me that Scotland will get nothing.
I also find it odd that the Scottish Conservative party will get nothing out of the £250,000 as it is the only party which might benefit from proportional representation in Scotland—it might secure at least some representation in Scotland under that system.
It is extraordinary that the Conservatives are adamant that they wish to protect the existing system and, indeed, extend it in a rather gerrymandered and corrupt fashion in circumstances in which, given the drift of election swings, the bias to the left is likely to be the main consequence of the Bill being passed.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was aiming high for Scotland? Does he think that no seats and no money is an example of aiming high?

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He has aimed high because Scotland will pay but get nothing back. This is a simple contribution—a high bill to Scotland for absolutely no return.
It is extraordinary that Conservative Members show such contempt for the European Parliament, which they prefer to call an "assembly" to show how they downgrade

it. They do not care about the political distortions that are brought about by arrangements in the United Kingdom. Ironically, they are likely to work against the Conservative party next year and many Conservative MEPs currently in that Parliament will lose their seats as a consequence of this, and might wish that the Government had taken a slightly broader position.
As this agreement arises out of a meeting held in Edinburgh, as the Prime Minister is on record as saying that he is committed to ensuring that Scotland should benefit and prosper within the United Kingdom, and as the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that he is fighting to improve Scotland's representation within the European Parliament, the people of Scotland should not be expected to pay a penny of the £250,000. Can the Minister assure us that there will be no consequences for the Scottish people and that they will find none of their services cut to pay for it?
Under the heading
Effect of the Bill on Public Service Manpower
the Bill says that
staff will be temporarily assigned to the Committees under paragraph 3 of the Schedule of the Bill".
Which staff will be seconded to the committee? Where will they come from? And what are they doing that is so unimportant that they can now be taken away from it without material consequences?
As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) asked, will he be further displaced from finding a place to deal assiduously with the substantial amount of work that he has to handle as a result of the Conservative Government who brought him to this House?
Those are serious points. The Conservative party, which is used to wrestling with a deficit of £50 billion, may not regard £250,000 as a matter of any consequence. But spent with the specific intention of ensuring that the Tory and Labour parties do all right, thank you very much, while the rest of the country pays for the consequences, it is not just a waste of money but fundamentally corrupt. It is being spent across all the taxpayers and nations of the United Kingdom in a way designed to secure party political advantage for the Tory and Labour parties and to continue to maintain a distortion which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, is a shame on this country's reputation.
It is a tragic irony that we still have the image of being the mother of Parliaments, yet we are spending £250,000 to perpetuate that distortion. That is corruption. It is a travesty and a shame and may yet be challenged by the European Court. Since we became signatories of the treaty of Rome and acceded to the European Parliament, we have failed to honour our treaty obligations to agree a common electoral system for the European Parliament. We have not even been prepared, as could have been done under the Bill, at least to start to test how that could be done. We are now asking taxpayers to spend £250,000 to perpetuate a distortion which brings shame to this country.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made a pertinent point: if a challenge is successful in the European Court, the money voted by this Parliament will have been illegally spent, and more money may have to be spent to put the matter right.
However, I guess that a Government who were prepared to tell lies about £50 billion before the election will hardly worry about a few hundred thousand pounds


here or there on the issue of democracy. It is a matter of no concern to them. But it is a matter of great and growing concern to a wide audience in this country, who will see what has been done in this House and how the Tory and Labour parties corruptly think that they can carve up the system for themselves for ever.
The time is coming when the people of this country will say, "Enough is enough. A plague on both your houses. Drop your Bill and let's have some real democracy."

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: We have spent many hours on Second Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and we are now debating the motion on the money resolution. Not one Scottish Conservative Member or a Minister from the Scottish Office has been present for the debate to explain their attitude to the issue. That is to be deprecated.
Scotland will benefit not one whit from the legislation. At the time of the Edinburgh summit, I said that Scotland was being regarded as a tartan waitress by the people at the top table. The £250,000 that we are debating could be regarded as tips to the waitress. It seems that Scotland's taxpayers are to be asked to give money for which they will receive no benefit whatever. That money will be used to pay part of the cost of the new direct elections.
The European Parliament is becoming increasingly important. I do not share the view of people such as the hon. Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who were here earlier, that that Parliament should be denigrated. It has a great deal to contribute to the development of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom. If benefit is to accrue to anybody, it should also accrue to the people of Scotland who are not to be given additional access to a democratically elected institution. We are being asked to contribute a quarter of a million pounds, but we are not to be allowed to increase our representation and our influence, and that is wrong.
Many hon. Members from other parties and the Member of the European Parliament for the Highlands and Islands have joined me in arguing that west Moray, Argyll and Bute, Cumbrae and Arran should be included in the objective 1 status afforded to the highlands and islands. The agriculture committee and the regional committee of the European Parliament have said that that should be agreed, and the European Parliament has cast 277 votes in favour of that.
If we are to influence economic and political developments in the Community institutions, we must have the right to increased representation. It is strange that the House is in danger of saying that Scotland's taxpayers should support increased funding for the Community, but should not have increased influence.

Mr. Wallace: I noted my hon. Friend's barbs about the absence of Scottish Conservatives from the Chamber. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), has finally joined us. Perhaps she would acknowledge his presence and comment on it. Perhaps he will tell us why Scotland should stump up for no benefit whatever.

Mrs. Ewing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. I should be grateful for an indication of Scottish Office thinking on the matter.
As I have said, it is strange that Scottish taxpayers are being asked to increase their funding but are to receive no benefit in return. It is important for the development of the Community that one of Europe's most ancient nations should have increased access. Denmark has 15 Members of the European Parliament, while Scotland, with the same population, has only eight. It is fundamental for the people of Scotland to see equity applied. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. If he does, it will be the first such comment in the debate.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): It became clear in the debate that Liberal Democrat Members were extremely upset by the result of the vote. I understand that, because they are committed to proportional representation. They spoke about party interest in the electoral system and it is undoubtedly true that their interest, as they perceive it, is in a system of PR. They are entitled to feel that, but there are many others who believe, on extremely good grounds, that the most effective way to represent the people in a Parliament is through individual constituencies to which an hon. Member is responsible. They do not want some list system, the shortcomings of which have been highlighted in a number of speeches.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lloyd: No, I will not.

Mr. Salmond: Why?

Mr. Lloyd: Because I do not have very much time.

Mr. Skinner: rose——

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Lloyd: All right, I shall give way.

Mr. Skinner: In talking about PR and Liberal Democrats Members, why does not the Minister remind them that the ex-leader of the Liberal party went to Italy to stand in one of the tinpot elections under the PR system and was thrashed?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a good reminder from the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) appears to be under some misapprehension. There are four Boundary Commissions and if there were also to be changes in the numbers in the other two countries that make up the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland and Scotland—their boundaries would have to be reviewed and the expense would be that much greater.
I assure the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the expenditure is precisely the same as the expenditure that would have been made had the Boundary Commission been doing the reviewing. The hon. Gentleman may be upset to know that, in fact, the process will be rather less expensive because the changes apply to only two of our four countries. He may be disappointed to learn that there will be rather less travelling about the country because, as has been discussed this evening, the possibility of local inquiries being held is constrained by the time scale involved. There will be less travel and less expense.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about wasting billions of pounds. I do


not think that, at that point, he had read the Bill. If he had, he would have known that the expenditure will be £250,000. There is nothing illegal in the process. The Government have authority to pay money out of the contingency fund. When the money resolution is passed this evening, as I am sure it will be, it will be before any expenditure is undertaken.

Mr. Beith: The Government have already made the arrangements.

Mr. Lloyd: It is true, of course, that we had to check whether members of the Boundary Commission would be willing to serve on the informal body, which will operate in the same way as the Boundary Commission. Obviously, those members expect to serve on the same terms.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked, in particular, how the money would be disbursed. The £250,000 allowed for in the money resolution covers all the expenses likely to be incurred by the committees in fulfilling their duties. The probable expenses are the payment of members' remuneration and expenses; the provision of staff to assist them in their duties—they will number about four; we expect them to be found from existing resources and there will be no increase in the gross number of permanent Government staff—the purchase and production of special maps; and the cost to publicising the preliminary recommendations of the committees.
To have a review of England and Wales done quickly, effectively and fairly for £250,000 constitutes reasonable expenditure and I am sure that the majority of hon. Members will endorse that view.

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I point out that Northern Ireland already has proportional representation, so adding a seat there would not require a Boundary Commission? From what date does he anticipate the expenses starting to run?

Mr. Lloyd: The expenses will start to run as soon as the committees start their work, which we hope will be very shortly indeed.
If the hon. Gentleman had attended the debate this evening—I think that he looked in from time to time—he would know that I agreed with the Labour Front Bench that it was no secret accommodation; it was across the Dispatch Box and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will be kept informed—to look closely at the timetable to see whether it can be achieved within the limits that we require and with the maximum amount of consultation. That we will do. There will be consultation; the question is how much and how many times it will be possible to repeat it.
Opposition Members proclaim their allegiance to the idea of Europe and the European Parliament. Unless we proceed with the timetable and keep to it, not merely will the extra seats not be taken up by Britain, but no other country will be able to take them up either.

Question put:—

The House divided:Ayes 236, Noes 27.

Division No. 314]
[11.15 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter(East Surrey)
Ancram, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael(Selby)
Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)


Amess, David
Arnold, Sir Thomas(Hazel Grv)





Ashby, David
Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth, N)


Atkins, Robert
Grylls, Sir Michael


Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)
Hague, William


Baker, Nicholas(Dorset North)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie(Epsom)


Baldry, Tony
Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)


Banks, Matthew(Southport)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bates, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Batiste, Spencer
Hargreaves, Andrew


Beggs, Roy
Harris, David


Bellingham, Henry
Haselhurst, Alan


Bendall, Vivian
Hawkins, Nick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heald, Oliver


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hendry, Charles


Booth, Hartley
Hicks, Robert


Boswell, Tim
Hill, James(Southampton Test)


Bowden, Andrew
Horam, John


Bowis, John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Howarth, Alan(Strat'rd-on-A)


Brazier, Julian
Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)


Bright, Graham
Hunt, Rt Hon David(Wirral W)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Brown, M.(Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hutton, John


Burns, Simon
Jack, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Jackson, Robert(Wantage)


Butcher, John
Jenkin, Bernard


Butler, Peter
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Gwilym(Cardiff N)


Carttiss, Michael
Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)


Chapman, Sydney
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Key, Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Kilfedder, Sir James


Coe, Sebastian
Kirkhope, Timothy


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Mrs Angela(Erewash)


Congdon, David
Knight, Greg(Derby N)


Conway, Derek
Knight, Dame Jill(Bir'm E'st'n)


Coombs, Anthony(Wyre For'st)
Knox, Sir David


Coombs, Simon(Swindon)
Kynoch, George(Kincardine)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Couchman, James
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Currie, Mrs Edwina(S D'by'ire)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Curry, David(Skipton  Ripon)
Legg, Barry


Davies, Quentin(Stamford)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Davis, David(Boothferry)
Lester, Jim(Broxtowe)


Day, Stephen
Lidington, David


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lightbown, David


Devlin, Tim
Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lord, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luff, Peter


Dover, Den
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
Maclean, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dunn, Bob
Madel, David


Dykes, Hugh
Maginnis, Ken


Elletson, Harold
Malone, Gerald


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mans, Keith


Evans, Jonathan(Brecon)
Marland, Paul


Evans, Nigel(Ribble Valley)
Martin, David(Portsmouth S)


Evans, Roger(Monmouth)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Faber, David
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Merchant, Piers


Fishburn, Dudley
Milligan, Stephen


Forman, Nigel
Mills, Iain


Forsyth, Michael(Stirling)
Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Sir David(Hants NW)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fox, Dr Liam(Woodspring)
Monro, Sir Hector


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


French, Douglas
Moss, Malcolm


Gamier, Edward
Nelson, Anthony


Gillan, Cheryl
Neubert, Sir Michael


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholson, David(Taunton)


Gorst, John
Nicholson, Emma(Devon West)


Greenway, Harry(Ealing N)
Norris, Steve


Greenway, John(Ryedale)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley






Oppenheim, Phillip
Streeter, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard
Sweeney, Walter


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian(Esher)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, John M.(Solihull)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Thomason, Roy


Pickles, Eric
Thompson, Sir Donald(C'er V)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Richards, Rod
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Riddick, Graham
Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Trend, Michael


Robinson, Mark(Somerton)
Trotter, Neville


Ross, William(E Londonderry)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew(Mid Kent)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Viggers, Peter


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sackville, Tom
Walden, George


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Waller, Gary


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, David(Dover)
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Whittingdale, John


Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Soames, Nicholas
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spencer, Sir Derek
Willetts, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Wolfson, Mark


Spring, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sproat, Iain
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin(Hornchurch)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stephen, Michael
Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Stern, Michael



Stewart, Allan





NOES


Allason, Rupert(Torbay)
Loyden, Eddie


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Maclennan, Robert


Barnes, Harry
Mahon, Alice

 Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)


Bruce, Malcolm(Gordon)
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies(Fife NE)
Salmond, Alex


Cann, Jamie
Skinner, Dennis


Carlile, Alexander(Montgomry)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Taylor, Matthew(Truro)


Cryer, Bob
Tyler, Paul


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Wallace, James


Foster, Don(Bath)



Godman, Dr Norman A.
Tellers for the Noes:


Johnston, Sir Russell
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.


Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)



Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of remuneration and allowances to the members of a European Parliamentary Constituencies Committee established by the Act.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That, during the proceedings on the Matter of local government in Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before half-past Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the Matter for two hours at the sitting.—[Mr. Conway.]

Orders of the Day — Rolling Stock

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House
do now adjourn,—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. John Gunnell: There is a close relationship between the subject of this Adjournment debate and that chosen by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) at the close of Monday's business, when he raised the difficulties at Asea Boveri Brown Transportation, York, and the jobs being lost there. I, too, start with the railway engineering industry and the current state of its order books.
In its second report on the future of the railways, the Transport Select Committee reproduced the graph that Steer Davies Gleave published for the Railway Industry Association, showing that, by the end of 1995, the domestic order book of every railway engineering company would be empty.
The Select Committee also learned from Lord Prior, in his role as chairman of GEC Alsthom, that there would be no industry left in three years' time if there are no new orders, and that that would cause massive job losses and a subsequent reliance on imports. As we know, and as the hon. Member for York has said, the first fruits of that occurred earlier this month, with the loss of 900 jobs in York, Derby and elsewhere.
Many observers, including those who support and those who oppose the changes promoted in the Railways Bill, accept that the uncertainty caused by the Bill is a major factor in the decline in investment. On Monday night, the Minister for Public Transport suggested that the recession was the main factor. The recession is a factor, but I believe that the influence of the Railways Bill has been a much greater factor, as it has made people uncertain about investing in the railways because of the high risk attached to the industry at the present time.
The Minister for Public Transport has shown that, to a certain extent, he accepts that thesis. He has been prepared to make adjustments while the Railways Bill has been considered, and those adjustments may engender more confidence in the future of the railways.
I believe that I share common ground with the Minister and with most hon. Members when I refer to the importance of rail services in passenger transport authority areas. They carry about one quarter of British Rail's passengers, and they carry twice as many passengers as InterCity. Their business contributes some £250 million to BR, and they are also notable investors in the system, having spent £690 million in total infrastructure costs over the period of section 20 financing, of which £150 million was spent on rolling stock.
The role of PTAs in procuring rolling stock has been recognised in clause 31 of the Railways Bill. That clause gives PTAs the power
to let railway locomotives and, rolling stock on hire.
The importance of PTAs in addressing the issue of empty order books is obvious and accepted. Therefore, how do we overcome the problems of achieving that investment and purchasing that rolling stock?
My area of West Yorkshire highlights the issue and must be the nursery for a solution. The Leeds-Bradford line is currently being electrified, and £54 million of investment has been sanctioned and in part paid for by central Government. That project will be successful and


the line will be electrified. However, once it is electrified, it would be very unfortunate if the passengers are forced to use 30-year-old rolling stock procured from Network SouthEast. That is what the Select Committee forecast.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the scheme is going ahead only because of the determination of the PTA? Central Government have been very parsimonious about the money for electrification, which absorbed a good trolley bus scheme which was going to run from Bradford city centre to my constituency. That scheme would have provided a cheap, silent and environmentally friendly system of transport, but it has been sacrificed for electrification because of the Government's meanness.

Mr. Gunnell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He underlines the fact that it would be sad if, having electrified the line, we were forced to use Network SouthEast trains which hon. Members who represent Southend have criticised as clapped out. It would be sad if cast-offs from the south come north. Although the line is electrified, we might still have to use diesels if rolling stock is not available.
Those matters were reported to the Transport Select Committee. It noted the passenger transport authority's attempts to finance the leasing of new stock and the response of the financial institutions to the situation brought about by the Railways Bill. That meant, it having been agreed previously that there would be an operating lease, that it fell through when the financiers felt that repayment of the money and security could no longer be guaranteed.
I appreciate that the Minister is working to find a creative solution to the problem. The working party that he set up between his Department and the West Yorkshire PTA is my evidence for that. But that working party has found that two types of obstacles exist, and I shall explore each of them.
First, there is a need in any leasing arrangement to satisfy the lessors that the risk to them is reasonable. When PTAs had direct precepting powers and trains were operated on their behalf by a national railway, as was the case in the past, the lessors felt comfortable. But once the Railways Bill is in operation, neither of those conditions will hold true, which is why the lessors have become uneasy.
Their doubts about the future roles of the PTAs have by now largely been removed by clauses 28 to 31 of the Bill and the assurances that the Minister gave me in Committee. But more problematic has been the role of the franchising director and the status of the operators. On Third Reading, the Minister established a framework within which the franchising director could both protect the security of assets used to provide franchised services and ensure their continuation, and he has subsequently announced the setting up of companies to purchase the rolling stock and become lessors.
But those issues require further probing. Will he, with the Bill now in another place, give the franchising director and the PTA wider powers to promote investment? Will he allow the PTA to insist on new rolling stock or other new equipment or facilities on their services? Will the franchising director be party to agreements with the lessor,

with the manufacturer of rolling stock and with the passenger transport authority or the passenger transport executive in the period before the franchises in their areas are to be let? Will he ensure that operating leases will, if the services remain viable, operate for 25 to 30 years, the life of the rolling stock—namely, for four franchises? I hope that the Minister will answer in the affirmative.
The second set of obstacles surrounds local government financial arrangements. With PTAs no longer able to precept for their cash, how can the lessors be wholly confident that they can continue to pay the bill? Before the problems of that payment can be considered, it must be realised that the changes brought about by the Railways Bill, even before inflation, increase substantially the section 20 costs of PTAs nationally, as Steer Davies Gleave showed in their May 1993 paper.
The Minister has given assurances that section 20 payments to district councils will be increased to reflect fully the increased costs. But each council will have to pass over that money, and they may find it hard to justify to members of the public increasing payments to rail, while reducing many services that other people might regard as more essential.
For example, when I was the chair of social services in my authority, I faced reducing budgets. I might find it hard to support a passenger transport budget being substantially increased, which would be necessary through the section 20 system, if, at the same time, I had to tell people in the social services that they would receive less service. That will be a real problem for local authorities.
Payment for rolling stock leases will exacerbate the problem. First, it will require an additional distribution factor in the section 20 formula to reflect leasing costs. Then the Minister may need to use some mechanism to ensure that payments are passed on to the PTA. Take, for example, the Leeds-Bradford line. All five West Yorkshire district councils will have to levy this money and hand it over to pay the lessors. Of course, the Leeds and Bradford councils can easily justify this because the line will run from Leeds to Bradford, but how will Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield justify such payments?
This point is illustrated by the one rolling stock purchase that has taken place so far. I refer to the recent very welcome Strathclyde PTA order from Hunslet TPL in my constituency. Strathclyde is a multi-service authority, so the same council agrees revenue collection and leasing costs. The situation is much more difficult in metropolitan areas, where each of several councils has to make a separate decision.
This issue poses a serious dilemma. I hope that the Minister will seek imaginative solutions, perhaps by an extension of clause 56-type arrangements, or some alternative mechanism, such as the sort of credit system being used to finance electrification. I hope that, when he meets the chair of the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority in the near future, there will be on the table some suggestions as to how it might be made easier for district councils to pass on the money that will be needed to satisfy the lessors.
Before drawing to a close, I must stress the urgency of the situation. Ministers have said that there will be a long lead time of four to 12 years before the provisions of the Bill are fully implemented. So far as the PTA is concerned, legislative changes that are still needed will have to be implemented as soon as possible after Royal Assent, so that the new trains may enter the Leeds-Bradford


electrified service at the earliest possible date. Both ordering and entry into service will be necessary before franchising commences, and that will involve the agreements about which I have spoken.
The rolling stock industry is in a parlous state. One of the forecasters of gloom and doom, and a severe critic of the whole process brought about by the Railways Bill, isPrivate Eye's "Thomas the Privatised Tank Engine". But he is only putting cleverly the worst prognostications of the Opposition, the Select Committee and informed railway users.
The threat is real, but I believe that passenger transport authority services already have a better prospect as a result of certain safeguards in the legislation. This debate aims to further that process. The current situation in west Yorkshire can provide a good test bed for the Government to demonstrate their commitment both to PTA services and to the railway engineering industry. I urge the Minister, who has already shown himself to be a good listener, to respond.

Mr. Gary Waller: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly in this short debate. I should like, first, to pay a genuine tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, who has shown, not only by his words but also by his actions, that he has a genuine commitment to completion of the project which, in the context of this debate, is obviously centre stage: the electrification of the lines to the north of Leeds and Bradford—in particular, the Airedale and Wharfedale routes, which are so important to many of my constituents.
My right hon. Friend has not only engaged in discussions too numerous to mention, in an effort to resolve a problem that he inherited with his current responsibilities—I remember going to see his predecessor about this issue—but also visited the area on several occasions and incorporated helpful amendments into the Railways Bill.
It is, of course, difficult to exclude political differences from any area of life. Nevertheless, I should like to say that over several years those concerned with public transport in west Yorkshire—I should mention successive PTA chairmen: Councillor Michael Simmonds and Mick Lyons, as well as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) himself—have co-operated with members of my party to try to get the best possible deal for local commuters and other public transport users.
It is highly regrettable that my right hon. Friend and everyone who wants a sensible outcome should have had to work so hard to try to secure the provision of modern rolling stock on the lines which are to be electrified shortly following the preparatory works which have already taken place.
The present service, which is so well patronised, is urgently in need of updating and expansion. At peak periods, the trains cannot cope with the demand, and their reliability is unacceptably low. Surely it would be nonsense if the existing stock were to be replaced by 30-year-old trains transferred from elsewhere on the BR network, running in west Yorkshire on newly electrified track, incorporating the most up-to-date signalling equipment.
The scheme meets the rigorous cost-effectiveness criteria laid down by the Treasury. In addition, it is highly

beneficial in environmental terms, providing an attractive alternative to some appalling bottlenecks on the A65 and the A650 trunk roads, and orders for new trains would be very welcome to manufacturers in Yorkshire.
Uncertainty has for far too long bedevilled the project and those involved in it. Even if it is not possible tonight finally to blow away the final doubts hanging over it, I very much hope that we are on the last lap towards what we all wish for—a successful outcome.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall intervene briefly, as this is a Leeds and Bradford matter. As the Minister knows, it has been debated for many years and he has tried to get through the labyrinthine financial controls without much success so far.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said, it is a splendid new project for Leeds, Bradford and Airedale routes. To have second-hand rolling stock would be a let down for the passengers, and also for the engineering workers who build the rolling stock, whether at Hunslet Engineering of Leeds or in York. The manufacture of new rolling stock would help to create and retain jobs and stop wasteful expenditure on the payment of unemployment benefits.
Some of us wonder at the great ease with which the Treasury spends huge sums of money on, for example, the European fighter aircraft, whereas we cannot get a relatively small sum of money promised as the conclusion to the splendid electrification scheme. I hope that the Minister will display a positive attitude.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I share the aspirations of the hon. Members for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). I have 11 minutes, in which I shall try to respond as constructively as possible. I put on record the fact that I share the aspirations expressed by the two hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friend. I hope that the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South will forgive me if I go straight to the business in hand rather than making more general comments, which I can do at greater length on another occasion.
On the issue of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman, let me assure him that I am determined to do all I can to help to overcome the difficulties being experienced by West Yorkshire passenger transport authority and passenger transport executive in negotiating acceptable leasing terms for new rolling stock to be used on the Leeds-Bradford electrification project.
I should explain that the PTA is seeking to negotiate an operating lease under which the lessor would retain some 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. residual risk at the end of lease period. The hon. Gentleman will know, without my having to draw it specifically to his attention, that these are different terms from those outlined by the Treasury in its publication of late May, in which it sought to define what was a more conventional operating lease for the rest of the railway industry.
My point is that these are very favourable terms according to a local authority definition of an operating lease. A 10 to 15 per cent. residual value would probably


mean a lease period of 17 to 18 years, depending on the discount rate. The lessor would be looking to that period to reduce the residual value to that modest sum. The PTA would be the lessor, although the trains would be operated by British Rail, pending franchise.
When the services are franchised—it would be our intention to seek to franchise them in due course, but certainly not in 1994 and perhaps not even in 1995—the PTA would sublet the trains to the successful frachisee.
What are the difficulties? As I understand the position, the difficulties centre on the termination provisions of the lease. In a nutshell, the lessors, with whom the PTE was negotiating last year, stipulated that the lease should provide that a lump sum should be paid, equivalent to the value of the remaining payments under the lease, in certain circumstances. Those circumstances were, to put it bluntly, if the PTE was no longer the lessor because the Government proposed, and Parliament passed, legislation abolishing the PTAs and PTEs, and the lessor was not satisfied with the credit standing of the successor body, company or institution, that operated the trains. The lessor would then want the right to accelerate—effectively to terminate the lease.
The PTE does not hold substantial reserves, and at nearly £40 million the deal is a large one in relation to the size of its activity. The PTA is understandably anxious that the PIT could not meet such a call without undue recourse to its constituent local authorities.
Although I understand the difficulties of both parties, I am convinced that they are not insuperable and should be capable of resolution with a little give and take. The Government are prepared to be part of the give. I therefore wrote to Councillor Lyons, the chairman of the West Yorkshire PTA, on 7 June.
I referred in particular to the new clause, to which the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South has already referred, which would enable the franchising director to specify that the trains that the West Yorkshire PTE wish to lease would be used for more than one franchise. The power is explicitly related to the encouragement of investment and it explicitly allows the franchising director to enter into agreements with PTEs. Those new provisions are designed to enable comfort to be given to potential lessors—precisely the problem that we are seeking to address in this case.
I should note that the comfort must stop short of a Government guarantee that the franchisee will make the lease payments. Such a guarantee would result in a substantial transfer of risk to the public sector. That would result in the reclassification of the project, so that the capital cost of the trains would score as public expenditure in the year in which they were acquired. That would reflect the fact that, if Government were to shoulder such a large proportion of the risk, the public sector might as well buy the trains outright.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South asked why the Government are not sanctioning purchase outright. When I gave authorisation for the infrastructure, no money was available for the rolling stock. I am sure that I made the right decision, because there was a prospect of an operating lease, and I am determined that we should seek to write the lease.
The way forward is not found, however, by the Government guaranteeing the lease. On the other hand, I hope that potential lessors will take substantial comfort from the arrangements that we have put in place. At bottom, the Government's interest and those of lessors are very similar: Government want services to operate without interruption, and lessors want lease payments to flow without interruption. We are going to considerable lengths in the Railways Bill to provide safeguards to ensure that continuity of service is maintained.
In particular, we are providing for essential assets to be designated as "franchise assets" and are establishing a special railway administration regime, in the event of financial difficulties. I will not detain the House now with the detail of those arrangements. Suffice it to say that they provide a mechanism to enable quick and effective steps to be taken if a franchisee gets into financial difficulties. They will ensure that the essential assets—including the rolling stock—continue to remain available and can be transferred to a new franchisee in mid-franchise, if the worse comes to the worse.
That does not mean that there is no risk that a franchisee will default on his lease obligations, but the risk is strictly limited. What the private sector is about, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South will know because we have exchanged observations on this in previous debates, is limiting its risk. The arrangements are a practical way in which to do so.
Following my letter to Councillor Lyons, my officials met the West Yorkshire PTE officers to discuss the options. As a result, West Yorkshire PTE is now exploring possibilities with its lessors. I cannot anticipate the outcome of that, but I reiterate my firm commitment to helping to find a way forward on this transaction. I look forward to reviewing progress with Councillor Lyons on 15 July.
I now turn to the four specific questions that the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South asked. I am grateful to him for giving me advance sight of his remarks—it gave me a chance to prepare my thoughts. They are all relevant to what I have said, which I hope is helpful.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the PTA would be able to acquire new rolling stock. The answer is yes, because it must be a signatory to a franchise agreement. It will have the right, because it will stipulate the terms and conditions of a contract relating to the PTE area when it co-signs with the franchising director. It is our intention that the franchising director will also be a signatory. Our intention so far as the content of a franchise agreement is concerned is that new rolling stock will be delivered in the future or be used in a specific service.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the franchising director could be a party to the lease agreements. That is what we are talking about—these assurances. While I am not sure that he would be a party directly, I believe that he should be joined in the negotiations, possibly by means of a side agreement or side letter providing directly to the lessor certain guarantees and assurances. That should be practical. It is certainly the assumption on which I have worked.
The franchising director cannot commit himself formally until the Railways Bill receives Royal Assent. Therefore, we may have a particular problem in making as rapid progress as I would like on the West Yorkshire lease transactions. The franchising director cannot enter into such agreements until he has been formally appointed.


However, it does not preclude the franchising director-designate or the franchising advisor to the Secretary of State from entering into discussions now.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether leases could effectively be as long as 25 to 30 years. The hon. Gentleman said four franchises—it may not be four franchises. Certainly, it is our intention that the franchising director should take powers to fetter his own discretion and require the continued use of leased assets. That is not time-limited. With this sort of lease, we are looking at 17, 18 or possibly even 19 years, so I would not rule that out.
The final and most important issue in the one minute left to me is that of levying and precepting. I can go a little further than the assurance that I gave on the recycling of moneys for the PTEs as a result of, for example, Rail-Track charges rising or other expenses being

inevitably passed on to the PTEs as a result of the reforms. I am prepared to look at mechanisms in addition to the normal section 20 payments, so that the money gets more directly into the hands of the PTA and the PTE, to allow them to continue to make their lease payments. I am having discussions with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I hope that when the matter is debated in another place we will be able to give certain assurances on that score.
I want this lease to be written. I look forward to the meeting with Councillor Lyons and the occasion when the hon. Member for Bradford, South can congratulate me wholeheartedly on a transaction completed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Twelve midnight.